JUDGMENT : Alok Sharma, J. This misc. appeal has been filed against the order dated 27.11.2013, whereby Additional District Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan City, Jaipur has dismissed the Misc. Application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC filed by appellant-defendant No.6-judgment debtor (hereinafter the defendant') against the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 17.01.2011 on the ground that it was filed beyond limitation as the defendant had been unable to make out sufficient cause for condonation of delay as sought in the accompanying application under section. 2. The facts of the case are that the defendant - Sheetal Khandelwal purchased house No.34 Laxman, Colony Shyam Nagar, Jaipur from one Rajiv Joshi s/o. Shri Mahesh Joshi on 20.01.2006 by way of a registered sale-deed and took possession thereof. Thereafter on 30.01.2006 the defendant was forcibly dispossessed from the house in issue and was locked out by the respondent-plaintiff decree holder Rajasthan Financial Corporation (hereinafter the plaintiff') by resort to Section 29 of the Rajasthan State Financial Act, 1951 (Act of 1951) as the house in issue was stated to be under equitable mortgage with the plaintiff. 3. RFC as plaintiff filed a suit before the District Judge, Jaipur for cancellation of the registered sale-deed dated 20.01.2006 by which the defendant had purchased the suit property from Rajiv Joshi. The suit was numbered 140/2009 on transfer to Additional District Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. In the said suit, the defendant was served and duly represented by his advocate Mr. Ram and more was filed. Issues were framed on 25.03.2009. The matter was kept for plaintiff's evidence on 23.05.2009. Thereafter it appears that on several dates, the plaintiff did not file its affidavit in evidence. Even on 27.07.2010 plaintiff's affidavit in evidence was not filed, yet owing to the defendant remaining unrepresented on the said date ex parte proceedings were drawn against him. It appears that defendant thereafter continued to be ex-parte on about four occasions even during which the plaintiff's affidavit in evidence was not filed. On 17.01.2011, the plaintiff filed his affidavit in evidence. Arguments were heard and ex-parte decree was passed on the same day. 4. It is relevant to state that on being dispossessed by RFC on 30.01.2006 Sheetal Khandelwal filed a suit No.68/2006 against the RFC for permanent and mandatory injunction claiming ownership of the house in issue as a bona fide purchaser under a registered sale deed. Arguments were heard and ex-parte decree was passed on the same day. 4. It is relevant to state that on being dispossessed by RFC on 30.01.2006 Sheetal Khandelwal filed a suit No.68/2006 against the RFC for permanent and mandatory injunction claiming ownership of the house in issue as a bona fide purchaser under a registered sale deed. The matter is still Judge (JD), No.2. Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. In the said suit, RFC was directed to maintain status quo with regard to suit property. The suit continues to be pursued and plaintiff's evidence in the said suit has been completed. The matter is now fixed for RFC evidence. In the course of proceedings in the above suit (No.68/2006), an affidavit came to be filed by the RFC that its suit No. 140/2009 for cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 20.01.2006 executed by Rajiv Joshi in favour of Sheetal Khandelwal before the Additional District Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur had been decreed ex-parte. Thereupon, the defendant states to have come to knowledge of the ex-par ate decree dated 17.01.2011. Fie then contacted counsel engaged in the said suit and applied for a certified copy. Within 30 days of the receipt thereof, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed. An accompanying section 5 Limitation Act, 1963, application seeking condonation of delay in filing the dismissed the said application for condonation of delay stating that from the material on record, the defendant was negligent in pursuing his defence in suit No. 140/2009 and that was in fact indicative of his lack of bonafides. As such sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was not made out. Consequently the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act as also the one under Order 9 Rule 13 have been dismissed. 5. Mr. N.K. Maloo Sr. counsel with Mr. Rahul Kamwar appearing for the defendant submits that the court below has erred in perfunctorily concluding as to defendant's lack for bonafides consequent to which the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the application u/Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was dismissed. 5. Mr. N.K. Maloo Sr. counsel with Mr. Rahul Kamwar appearing for the defendant submits that the court below has erred in perfunctorily concluding as to defendant's lack for bonafides consequent to which the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the application u/Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was dismissed. He submits that in the overall facts of the case more particularly the fact that the defendant was/is pursuing his own suit No.68/2006 against RFC in respect of the very same property is indicative of the defendant acting bonafide, his counsel's negligence in not following up proceedings in the plaintiff's suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 20.01.2006 could not have been to the defendant's irrevocable prejudice. It was submitted that no sooner the defendant was dispossessed by the RFC, he had filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction (suit No. 68/2006) against the RFC. The court below also failed to appreciate that even after framing of issues on 25.03.2009 in suit No. 140/2009 filed by the RFC, it took about 14 adjournments for filing its affidavit in evidence. Under these circumstances, it is not difficult to conceive that the defendant was lured into lethargy with the plaintiff showing no interest in expediting its own suit. Sr. Counsel submitted that the defendant's Advocate before the lower court had indeed not been diligent in pursing the defendant's defence in suit No. 140/2009 before the Addl. District Judge No.8 Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur and negligent in allowing ex-parte proceedings to be initiated therein on 27.07.2010 resulting in the ex-parte decree of 17.01.2011. But Sr. counsel submitted that the fact remains that plaintiff's affidavit in evidence was filed on 17.01.2011 after about 14 adjournments and oddly the same day itself arguments were heard and judgment too pronounced. It was emphatically submitted that in the overall facts of the case, negligence or the error on the part of the defendant's counsel before the trial court cannot be construed as recklessness or strategic inaction by the defendant himself to obstruct the processes of the trial court. Sr. Counsel submitted that even though the merits of the defendant's defence might not be relevant in this Misc. Sr. Counsel submitted that even though the merits of the defendant's defence might not be relevant in this Misc. Appeal yet the fact of the matter is that the suit property was purchased by the defendant in pursuance to an auction notice published by the secured creditors (LIC Housing Finance Ltd. and other) who were seeking recovery of money from the sale of property mortgaged with them by their debtor in default one Rajiv Joshi. It was submitted that one Amzad Ali Panwar had thereon issued a due diligence notice in Dainik Bhaskar, a newspaper with very good circulation on 03.01.2006 stating his intention to purchase the house in issue in the RFC's suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 20.1.2006. Yet no objection thereto was filed by the RFC, purportedly, also a secured creditor qua the house in issue on the basis of a second and fraudulent sale deed. It was submitted that though notice of purchase of suit property was published in a newspaper for the purpose of due diligence by the prospective purchaser Amzad Ali Panwar, no objection was filed by the RFC. Thereafter the defendant purchased the property. It was submitted that in this view of the matter, the defendant as a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice of RFC's alleged mortgage over the suit property and has a very substantial case to agitate against the plaintiff RFC in its suit for cancellation of registered sale deed dated 20.01.2006. 6. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2001(2) ACJ 60 (S.C.): AIR 2001 SC 2497 M.K. Prasad v. P. Arumuguam to contend that even though a litigant may appear to not be as vigilant as he ought to have been in the conduct of a suit yet when the overall facts of the case do not make out mala/ides, a liberal view ought to be taken in setting aside an ex parte decree. It was held in the aforesaid case as under :- "In the instant case, the appellant tried to explain the delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree as is evident from his application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act accompanied by his own affidavit. It was held in the aforesaid case as under :- "In the instant case, the appellant tried to explain the delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree as is evident from his application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act accompanied by his own affidavit. Even though the appellant appears not to be as vigilant as he ought to have been, yet his conduct does not, on the whole, warrant to castigate him as an irresponsible litigant. He should have been more vigilant but his failure to adopt such extra vigilance should not have been made a ground for ousting him from the litigation with respect to the property, concededly to be valuable. While deciding the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree, the court should have kept in mind the judgment impugned, the extent of the property involved and the stake of the parties. We are of the opinion that the inconvenience caused to the respondent for the delay on account of the appellant being absent from the court in this case can be compensated by awarding appropriate and exemplary costs. In the interests of justice and under the peculiar circumstances of the case we set aside the order impugned and condone the delay in filing the application for setting aside ex-parte decree. To avoid further delay, we have examined the merits of the main application and feel that sufficient grounds exist for setting aside the ex- parte decree as well. Consequently, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the orders impugned. The appellant's application for condoning the delay and for setting aside the ex-parte decree shall stand allowed subject to payment of exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to the opposite side within a period of 30 days. If the costs are not paid within the time specified, this appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed and the ex-parte decree passed against the appellant revived. We may clarify that the costs awarded by this order are in addition to the amount of Rs. 10,000/- deposited in this Court for payment to the respondent vide order dated 03.11.2000." 7. We may clarify that the costs awarded by this order are in addition to the amount of Rs. 10,000/- deposited in this Court for payment to the respondent vide order dated 03.11.2000." 7. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1981 SC 1400 (Rafiq & Anr v. Munshi Lal & Anr.), to submit that a litigant should not be made to suffer for the misdemeanor or inaction of his counsel. 8. Mr. J.K. Singhi, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Amithabh Jatav appearing for respondent RFC has however supported the impugned order passed by the court below dismissing the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 and consequently the one under Order 9, Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant and respondent RFC. 10. Some important aspects of the matter are as under: The defendant has purchased the suit property by way of a registered sale deed dated 20.01.2006 from Rajiv Joshi. After the sale of the house was notified in a daily newspaper of substantial circulation, i.e. Dainik Bhaskar on 03.01.2006 in the course of due diligence by one Amzad Ah" Panwar. That Amzad Ali Panwar did not purchase the suit property after issuing the notice dated 03.01.2006 but the defendant did is irrelevant at the stage of consideration of his appeal. The fact remains that RFC was put to notice of the sale of the house property in issue. Further no sooner the defendant was dispossessed by the plaintiff RFC claiming to be the purported secured creditor of the suit property allegedly under equitable mortgage with it, suit No.68/2006 inter-alia for mandatory injunction was filed against the RFC before the competent court i.e. Additional Civil Judge (JD) No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan City, Jaipur. Similarly in the plaintiff RFC's Suit No. 140/2009 before the Additional District Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan City, Jaipur, the defendant had filed his written statement and apparently was pursuing the case through his counsel. Issues were struck on 25.03.2009. Even thereafter the plaintiff's evidence was not brought on record in spite of several adjournments. In the circumstances the defendant's counsel appears to have been drawn into the carelessness and did not pursue the said suit-with the requisite diligence. Issues were struck on 25.03.2009. Even thereafter the plaintiff's evidence was not brought on record in spite of several adjournments. In the circumstances the defendant's counsel appears to have been drawn into the carelessness and did not pursue the said suit-with the requisite diligence. The exparte decree in the said suit was passed on 17.01.2011 i.e. the same day the affidavit in evidence was filed and arguments made too. On 28.04.2012 from RFC's affidavit in the other suit i.e. No.68/2006 also relating to the suit property, the defendant came to know that the suit No. 140/2009 had been decreed ex-parte against him. He then filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code with reasonable expedition within 30 days of knowledge along with an application for condonation of delay u/s.5 of Limitation Act 1963. Copies of the advocates diary were placed on record before the trial court in support of the case of the defendant that track of the case appeared to have been lost as the advocate of the defendant committed a mistake in carrying forward pending cases from the date 27.10.2010 fixed in court to the next date. Thereafter the error was perpetuated. 11. In the over all facts of the case, to my mind, lack of bonafides of uncondonable negligence cannot be attributed to defendant. Following the judgment of the Apex Court in M.K. Prasad and Rafiq (supra) that a litigant should not be made to render a high price and suffer disastrous consequences for inaction on the part of his counsel, in the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I would condone the delay in filing the application u/s.5 of the Act of 1963.1 would also for the same reason allow the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and set aside the impugned order dated 27.11.2013, passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 8, Jaipur Metropolitan City, Jaipur. The ex-parte decree dated 17.01.2011 in Civil Suit No. 140/2009 is consequently set aside. 12. Resultantly, the trial court is directed to proceed with the underlying suit from the stage of plaintiff's evidence. 13. The defendant is saddled with the cost of Rs. 35,000/-. Rs. 25,000/- has already been deposited under the order dated 19.12.2013 passed by this court. The remaining amount of Rs. 12. Resultantly, the trial court is directed to proceed with the underlying suit from the stage of plaintiff's evidence. 13. The defendant is saddled with the cost of Rs. 35,000/-. Rs. 25,000/- has already been deposited under the order dated 19.12.2013 passed by this court. The remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/- be paid to the plaintiff RFC within a period of two weeks from the receipt of certified copy of the order. RFC would also be entitled to withdraw the cost of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the defendant with the Registrar (Admn.) Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur under order of this court. 14. It is made clear that any observation merit of the suit before the trial court and the final outcome of the suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 20.01.2006 before the trial court shall be determined on the basis of the evidence before that court and applicable law. 15. The trial court is directed to decide the suit before it expeditiously and in any event not later than 12 months from the date of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. Both the parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 03.03.2014.