ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 04.12.2002 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.2, Udaipur; whereby, its application under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code for setting aside ex parte decree dated 30.11.1996 was rejected and order dated 06.09.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge No.3, Udaipur; whereby, the order dated 04.12.2002 (supra) was upheld by the said court. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent-plaintiff M/s Agro Sales and Service filed a suit before the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.2, Udaipur for recovery of a sum of Rs. 9,731/- against the petitioner-Bank and defendant Vela Ram inter alia with the averments that Vela Ram applied to the petitioner-Bank for purchase of Diesel Pump Set, for which, a loan of Rs. 7,400/- was sanctioned. After sanction as per the direction of the petitioner-Bank the Pump Set was supplied to the said defendant Vela Ram. Thereafter the petitioner-Bank was requested to make the payment of the said Pump Set. However, the said amount was not paid and, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled for a sum of Rs. 7,400/- alongwith interest. After service of summons on the defendants, on behalf of the petitioner-Bank counsel appeared before the Court. On 05.06.1993 the suit was transferred from the Court of Civil Judge, Udaipur to the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sarada. Notices of the said transfer was issued to parties. On service of notice another counsel appeared before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sarda and the next date fixed in the matter was 21.02.1994. On 21.02.1994 the counsel did not appear and the suit was set ex parte against the petitioner-Bank. After setting the matter ex parte on 21.02.1994 again the matter was transferred to the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Udaipur; however, no notice of the transfer was given to the parties. Again before the Court of Civil Judge, Udaipur appearance was put in by the Bank and thereafter again on 19.03.1996 the matter was transferred to the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.2, Udaipur and ultimately the ex parte decree was passed on 30.11.1996. 3. Again before the Court of Civil Judge, Udaipur appearance was put in by the Bank and thereafter again on 19.03.1996 the matter was transferred to the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.2, Udaipur and ultimately the ex parte decree was passed on 30.11.1996. 3. The petitioner-Bank coming to know of passing of the ex parte decree filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code for setting aside of the ex parte decree. It was inter alia submitted that the matters were transferred from one Court to another, information regarding which was never sent by the Court nor the counsel informed about the said transfer and, therefore, the petitioner-Bank was prevented by sufficient cause to appear before the Court. It was also claimed that even setting the suit ex parte against them was also not within their knowledge. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff inter alia on the ground that the conduct of the Bank has been absolutely negligent, inasmuch as, they had not even cared to seek setting aside of the ex parte order and, therefore, they are not entitled to seek any indulgence from the Court. 4. The learned trial court after hearing the parties, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-Bank under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code. The learned trial court was of the opinion that the petitioner-Bank was aware of the setting of suit ex parte against them, however, as they had not taken any steps for getting that order set aside, the application was prima facie time barred and, therefore, the Bank was not entitled for setting aside of the ex parte decree. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner-Bank approached the appellate court under Order 43 and remained unsuccessful there as well. The appellate court was of the opinion that as the matter was set ex parte against the petitioner-Bank, there was no question of sending of information of transfer to it on transfer of the case from one Court to another. It was also of the opinion that once the appearance was given the Bank should have remained vigilant and, therefore, there was no reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial court. 6. Now the petitioner-Bank has approached this Court way of the present writ petition. 7. It was also of the opinion that once the appearance was given the Bank should have remained vigilant and, therefore, there was no reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial court. 6. Now the petitioner-Bank has approached this Court way of the present writ petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record as well as the record of both the courts below. 8. It was vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that grave injustice has been done to the petitioner-Bank by rejecting its application under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code for no fault of the petitioner-Bank. It was submitted that Bank on its part thrice engaged counsel for appearance in the same matter before various Courts. The matter was transferred three times from one Court to another and the same has resulted in its inability to properly track the matter and it bona fidely remained dependent on its counsel for conducting the matter on its behalf. The Bank had sufficient cause for its nonappearance in the Courts below and, therefore, they were entitled to get the ex parte decree set aside. It was further submitted that the nature of case also is such that even on merits they have a plausible and very strong case to defend the suit filed by the plaintiff. It was further submitted that both the Courts below have given undue important to the fact that even after the matter was set ex parte against the petitioner-Bank, the Bank did not take any steps to get the said order set aside, which has resulted in the orders impugned. Ultimately, it was prayed that orders passed by the Courts below be set aside and the petitioner-Bank be granted opportunity to contest the suit on merits. 9. The counsel placed reliance on 2000(2) CC 714 (S.C.) : 2000(1) ACJ 371 (S.C.) : 2000(3) SCC 54 (G.P. Srivastva v. R.K. Raizada ), 2008(3) ACJ 720 (S.C.) : JT 2008(11) 397 (The Secretary of Horticulture, Chandigarh & Anr. v. Raghu Raj.), 2008(2) CCC 203 (Raj) : 2008(1) DNJ(Raj) 344 (Narayan Lal Bugra & Anr. v. Hanuman Sharma), 2005(2) CCC 422 (S.C) : 2005(3) SCC 752 (State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO and 2007(7) SCC 200 (Lal & Anr. v. Vaneeta Jain). 10. v. Raghu Raj.), 2008(2) CCC 203 (Raj) : 2008(1) DNJ(Raj) 344 (Narayan Lal Bugra & Anr. v. Hanuman Sharma), 2005(2) CCC 422 (S.C) : 2005(3) SCC 752 (State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO and 2007(7) SCC 200 (Lal & Anr. v. Vaneeta Jain). 10. Opposing the arguments above, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff stated that the entire conduct of the petitioner-Bank is such that it is not entitled to claim any relief from this Court. Both the Courts below have thoroughly examined the issue on facts and have concurrently found that the petitioner-Bank has been negligent in its conduct, inasmuch as, it did not care to get the suit ex parte against it set aside and further submitted that once the party was appearing before the Court through counsel, there is no question of sending any notice to the party regarding transfer of the suit from one Court to another. Ultimately, it was prayed that the petitioner Bank is not entitled to any indulgence from this Court and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at AIR 2008(1) ACJ 388 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CCC 696 (S.C) : 2008 SC 1006 (Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank of India). 12. I have considered the rival submission made at the Bar. 13. It is undoubtedly true that in the present case the suit was filed on 05.03.1990 and the petitioner-Bank had put in appearance on 17.07.1990 and filed its written statement. The matter was transferred to the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sarada on 05.06.1993 (I transfer) and in the said Court again a counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner-Bank after the notice of the said transfer was served on the petitioner Bank. The matter was again transferred to the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Udaipur on 06.01.1995 (II transfer). In the meanwhile, the suit had been set ex parte against the petitioner-Bank on 21.02.1994. Again the suit was transferred to the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.2, Udaipur on 19.03.1996 (III transfer). Admittedly, no notices of the said II transfer and III transfer were sent to the petitioner Bank by the Court and in fact entire effective proceedings in the suit have taken place before the last transferred Court. Again the suit was transferred to the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.2, Udaipur on 19.03.1996 (III transfer). Admittedly, no notices of the said II transfer and III transfer were sent to the petitioner Bank by the Court and in fact entire effective proceedings in the suit have taken place before the last transferred Court. Both the Courts below have given great emphasis on the fact that the petitioner-Bank did not take any steps to get the matter ex parte against it set aside despite its appearance after the matter was so set ex parte against it. 14. As noticed hereinbefore, it appears that both the Courts below have given absolutely unnecessary important to the fact of not getting the ex parte order set aside. As noticed, no effective proceedings had taken place in the suit after the matter was set ex parte against the petitioner-Bank till the time the counsel appeared before passing of the said order and in fact there was no such requirement to get the said order set aside as it is well settled that the defendant against whom the suit is to be proceeded ex parte is entitled to take part in the suit at a latter stage, but he cannot be relegated to the position he could have occupied if he had appeared unless he makes an application for setting aside of the ex parte order. As nothing substantially had happened in the suit except for adjournments and transfers of case from one Court to another, there was in fact no requirement for the petitioner-Bank to get the ex parte order set aside and mere appearance of the counsel was sufficient to further participate in the said suit. Therefore, apparently, the reasoning which has led both the Courts below to reject the application filed by the petitioner-Bank is on its face erroneous. 15. The argument that once the parties had appeared through counsel there was no need to send notice appears to be not correct as in the said case at the time of first transfer the notice for the same was given by the Court despite the fact that counsel had in fact appeared for the petitioner-Bank. 16. 15. The argument that once the parties had appeared through counsel there was no need to send notice appears to be not correct as in the said case at the time of first transfer the notice for the same was given by the Court despite the fact that counsel had in fact appeared for the petitioner-Bank. 16. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G.P. Srivastva's case (supra) that the expression 'was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing' must be liberally construed where defence is reasonable, defendant approaches Court for setting aside ex parte decree within statutory period and nonappearance is not mala fide or intentional. 17. The other two judgments, the Secretary of Horticulture, Chandigarh (supra) and Narayan Lal Bagra & Anr. (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court have respectively held that the party should not suffer on account of default of his counsel. 18. Apparently, though the petitioner-Bank had engaged counsel every time, it was not made aware of transfer of the suit from one Court to another and was apparently diligently prosecuting the said suit, the non-appearance before the last Court after the III transfer appears to be bona fide and it cannot be said that there was any intentional lapse on the part of the petitioner-Bank. 19. The judgment relied on by the counsel for the respondent is apparently distinguishable as in the said case the summons had been served on the defendant therein by newspaper publication under Order 5 Rule 20 Civil Procedure Code. Further, the Court also reached to a conclusion that the defendant had willfully suppressed relevant facts from the Court and, as such, it was not entitled to any relief, which are not the facts in the present case. 20. In that view of the matter, the writ petition filed by the petitioner-Bank is allowed. The orders dated 04.12.2002 and 06.09.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.2, Udaipur and Additional District Judge No.3, Udaipur respectively are set aside. The application filed by the petitioner-Bank under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code is allowed. The ex parte decree dated 30.11.1996 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.2, Udaipur in Civil Original Suit No.69/1996 is set aside on payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the plaintiff. The application filed by the petitioner-Bank under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code is allowed. The ex parte decree dated 30.11.1996 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.2, Udaipur in Civil Original Suit No.69/1996 is set aside on payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the plaintiff. The trial court is directed to afford the petitioner-Bank opportunity to prove its case and expedite the disposal of the suit preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The record of the trial court be sent back immediately.