JUDGMENT Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 10-7-2006 passed by First Additional District Judge, Mahasamund, C.G. in M.J.C. No. 18 of 2003 by which appellant's/ plaintiff's application under Order 9, Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short CPC) for setting aside of the dismissal of the suit has been rejected by the trial Court. The facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are as under: 1.1 The appellant's/plaintiff's suit for declaration and permanent injunction restraining respondent/defendant from recovering the amount was fixed for final hearing on 28-2-2013. On the said date, suit was dismissed for want of prosecution as appellant/plaintiff and her counsel, both were absent. Appellant's/plaintiff's application for restoration of the suit filed under Order 9, Rule 9 read with S. 151, C.P.C. was also rejected by the trial Court holding that no sufficient cause has been shown by the appellant/plaintiff, when the case was called up for hearing. 1.2 Appellant/plaintiff filed an application under Order 9, Rule 9 read with S. 151, C.P.C. on 3-3-2003 pleading inter alia that the case was fixed on 28-2-2003 for final arguments. On the said date, counsel instructed her not to come personally and also her counsel could not appear, as he fell sick. Therefore, neither she nor her counsel-Mr. Shailendra Tiwari could appear, when the case was called up for hearing leading to dismissal of the suit. It was further pleaded that she being the widow, aged about 65 years could not get information with regard to sickness/illness of her counsel and her son Indrajeet Singh though present in the Court, premises could not came to know about his counsel's illness. In the later part of the day, her son Indrajeet Singh contacted on phone to his counsel-Mr. Shailendra Tiwari has not come to know that his suit had already been dismissed. The said application was supported by an affidavit of the appellant/plaintiff herself and prayer was made for restoration of the suit in its original number. 1.3 Respondent/defendant-Nagar Palika Parishad filed its reply opposing the application for restoration and pleaded that for non-appearance on 28-2-2003, dismissal of the suit is justified, as the appellant/plaintiff has not shown sufficient cause for non-appearance, when the suit was called up for hearing on 28-2-2003. 2. Mr. 1.3 Respondent/defendant-Nagar Palika Parishad filed its reply opposing the application for restoration and pleaded that for non-appearance on 28-2-2003, dismissal of the suit is justified, as the appellant/plaintiff has not shown sufficient cause for non-appearance, when the suit was called up for hearing on 28-2-2003. 2. Mr. Anand Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that on 28-2-2003 case was fixed for final hearing and on instruction of her counsel, she has sent her son Shri Indrajeet Singh to the Court as her personal presence was not required, but on the said date her counsel Shri Shailendra Tiwari stationed at Bagbahara became sick could not come to the Court. He would further submit that the appellant/plaintiff is a widow, aged about 65 years and filed the application within 4 days of the dismissal of the suit; the trial Court ought to have adopted liberal approach in considering her application for restoration and rejection of her application is bad in law. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, learned counsel for the respondent/ defendant opposed the appeal and supported the order impugned. 4. I Have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submission made therein and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal. 5. Order 9, Rule 9, C.P.C. provides as under: Rule 9. Decree against plaintiff by default bars fresh suit.--(1) Where a suit is wholly or partly dismissed under rule 8, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action. But he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside, and if he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the dismissal upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit. (2) No order shall be made under this rule unless notice of the application has been served on the opposite party. 6. A bare perusal of the Order 9, Rule 9, C.P.C. would show the suit dismissed can be set aside if sufficient cause is shown by the appellant/plaintiff for his non-appearance, when the case is called on for hearing. 7. 6. A bare perusal of the Order 9, Rule 9, C.P.C. would show the suit dismissed can be set aside if sufficient cause is shown by the appellant/plaintiff for his non-appearance, when the case is called on for hearing. 7. The Supreme Court in case of G.P. Srivastava vs. R.K. Raizada and Others, (2000) 3 SCC 54 : AIR 2000 SC 1221 , while construing the sufficient cause employed. Para-7 held as under: 7. Under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. an ex parte decree passed against a defendant can be set aside upon satisfaction of the Court that either the summons were not duly served upon the defendant or he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing. Unless "sufficient cause" is shown for non-appearance of the defendant in the case on the date of hearing, the court has no power to set aside an ex parte decree. The words "was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing" must be liberally construed to enable the court to do inaction is imputable to the erring party. Sufficient cause for the purpose of hard and fast guidelines can be prescribed. The courts have a wide discretion in deciding the sufficient cause keeping in view the peculiar facts and to the date on which the absence was made a ground for proceeding ex parte and cannot be stretched to rely upon other circumstances anterior in time. If "sufficient cause" is made out for non-appearance of the defendant on the date fixed for hearing when ex parte proceedings were initiated against him, he cannot be penalized for his previous negligence which had been overlooked and thereby condoned earlier. In a case where the defendant approaches the Court immediately and within the statutory time specified, the discretion is normally exercised in this favour, provided the absence was not mala fide or intentional. For the absence of a party in the case the other side can be compensated by adequate costs and the lis decided on merits. 8. In case of Raj Kishore Pandey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2009) 2 SCC 692 : AIR 2009 SC 1640 , Para 8 held as under: 8. In our opinion, whether the applicant has made out sufficient cause or not, in the application filed, the Court is required to look at all the facts pleaded in the application. In case of Raj Kishore Pandey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2009) 2 SCC 692 : AIR 2009 SC 1640 , Para 8 held as under: 8. In our opinion, whether the applicant has made out sufficient cause or not, in the application filed, the Court is required to look at all the facts pleaded in the application. No doubt, the consideration of the existence of sufficient cause is the discretionary power with the court, but such discretion has to be exercised on sound principles and not on mere technicalities. The approach of the Court in such matters should be to advance the cause of justice and not the cause of technicalities. A case, as far as possible, should be decided on merits. 9. In case of Rafiq and Another vs. Munshilal and Another, (1981) 2 SCC 788 : AIR 1981 SC 1400 , the Supreme Court held that the obligation of the party is to select his advocate, brief him, pay the fees and trust the learned Advocate to do the rest of the things. It is thus a duty of lawyer to attend the proceedings. The Supreme Court held as under:- 3. The disturbing feature of the case is that under our present adversary legal system where the parties generally appear through their advocates, the obligation of the parties is to select his advocate, brief him, pay the fees demanded by him and then trust the learned Advocate to do the rest of the things. The party may be a villager or may belong to a rural area and may have no knowledge of the court's procedure. After engaging a lawyer, the party may remain supremely confident that the lawyer will look after his interest. At the time of the hearing of the appeal, the personal appearance of the party is not only not required but hardly useful. Therefore, the party having done everything in his power to effectively participate in the proceedings can rest assured that he has neither to go to the High Court to inquire as to what is happening in the High Court with regard to his appeal nor is he to act as a watchdog of the advocate that the latter appears in the matter when it is listed. It is no part of his job. 10. It is no part of his job. 10. Thus, in the light of aforesaid principles laid down by Supreme Court, in the instant case, appellant's/plaintiff's suit is for declaration and permanent injunction. Appellant/ plaintiff has contested the case diligently and ultimately, the case was fixed for final hearing on 28-2-2003. Since the argument has to be advanced by her counsel, she was not present in the Court on the said date of hearing, her counsel Mr. Shailendra Tiwari suddenly fell sick and could not come to the Court on the date of hearing and suit came to be dismissed for default on 28-2-2003 and thereafter, appellant/plaintiff filed promptly after 4 days an application for restoration on 3-3-2003 before the trial Court by showing sufficient cause for his non-appearance, as her counsel fell sick on the date of hearing. Thus, I find that the appellant/plaintiff has filed application for restoration within statutory period promptly within 4 days and the cause shown by the appellant/plaintiff for her non-appearance on 28-2-2003, when the suit was called up for hearing is sufficient cause and finding recorded by the trial Court holding that the cause shown is not sufficient is erroneous and liable to be set aside. 11. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that appellant/plaintiff has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for non-appearance on 28-2-2003, when the suit was called up for hearing. Consequently, the order passed by the trial court on 10-7-2006, rejecting the appellant's/plaintiff's application under Order 9, Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. is set aside. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. The Civil Suit No. 161-A/2000, (Smt. Preetam Kaur vs. Nagar Palika Parishad Pithaura) pending in the Court of First Additional District Judge, Mahasamund is restored in its original number. The trial Court shall now proceed to decide the suit in accordance with law on merits after affording an opportunity of being heard to all the parties and suit be decided expeditiously preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Certified copy as per rules. Appeal allowed.