JUDGMENT : P.K. LOHRA, J. The instant appeal by the appellant-defendant is preferred under Order 43 Rule 1(d) read with Section 104 CPC to assail order dated 7th of September 2015, passed by Addl. District Judge No. 3, Bhilwara (for short, ‘learned trial Court’). By the order impugned, learned trial Court rejected the application of appellant-defendant under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex-parte decree dated 17th of August 2010. 2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that first respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance of contract and perpetual injunction against appellant and second respondent Smt. Gatu Bai, inter-alia, on the ground that both of them executed an agreement to sale in respect of their joint khatedari land in three different Khasras bearing No. 7755, 7759 and 7774 admeasuring 2 bighas 2 biswas, 18 biswa, and 1 bigha 11 biswas respectively, total 4 bighas and 11 biswas. The agreement to sale unfurled that rival parties agreed on a rate of Rs.57,500/- per bigha with total consideration amount to the tune of Rs.2,51,525/-. The respondent-plaintiff pleaded in the plaint that as per agreement to sale dated 10th of June 2004, appellant and second respondent accepted earnest money of Rs.26,101/- on the same day and subsequently further accepted a sum of Rs.64,000/-. For the remaining amount of Rs.1 Lakh, it was agreed between the parties that same would be paid at the time of execution of sale deed stipulating the date of registration of sale deed in the agreement as 10th of July 2004. Besides that, it was pleaded in the plaint that the agreement was signed by appellant as the power of attorney of second respondent also, and two other witnesses. In order to claim relief of specific performance of contract, it is averred in the plaint that respondent-plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract but the appellant and second respondent did not pay any heed to the requests. It is further pleaded in the plaint that appellant and second respondent after accepting part of the consideration amount from respondent-plaintiff, made an affirmative attempt to frustrate his cause by partitioning the agricultural land and mutating it in different names, a significant fact, which was revealed to the plaintiff when he obtained certified copies of the revenue records. It is further pleaded in the plaint that appellant and second respondent after accepting part of the consideration amount from respondent-plaintiff, made an affirmative attempt to frustrate his cause by partitioning the agricultural land and mutating it in different names, a significant fact, which was revealed to the plaintiff when he obtained certified copies of the revenue records. With these pleadings, prayer for specific performance of contract as well as perpetual injunction is made. A further relief is also sought by the respondent-plaintiff in the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.87,330.50/- from appellant with interest @12% per annum. 3. The suit was contested by the appellant-defendant as well as second respondent. The appellant in his written statement denied all the allegations made in the plaint. While repudiating the alleged agreement to sale, it is pleaded in the written statement by the appellant that he never signed it and it is a spurious document. A prayer was made for dismissal of the suit while incorporating certain objections also. On behalf of second respondent, a separate written statement was filed stating therein that the agricultural land mentioned in Para 1 of the plaint was partitioned as a consequence of decree dated 28th of November 2006 passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Asserting that as per revenue record khasra numbers have changed, she pleaded ignorance about execution of agreement to sale. The second respondent also pleaded in the written statement that she never executed any power of attorney in favour of appellant. Plea of limitation is also incorporated in the written statement. 4. The learned trial Court, on the basis of pleadings of rival parties, framed 7 issues for determination. 5. It so happened that on 15th of March 2010, none appeared on behalf of appellant and second respondent and therefore learned trial Court proceeded ex-parte against them. Respondent-plaintiff, thereafter, tendered his ex-parte evidence and also filed affidavits of two witnesses, viz., Ladu Ram and Akhtar Ali, besides exhibiting five documents. The learned trial Court, then heard final arguments and by its judgment and decree dated 17th of August 2010 decreed the suit. 6. At the behest of appellant, an endeavour was made for setting aside ex-parte decree by laying an application on 20th of September 2010 under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC before the learned trial Court. 6. At the behest of appellant, an endeavour was made for setting aside ex-parte decree by laying an application on 20th of September 2010 under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC before the learned trial Court. In the application, it is pleaded that requisite information was not divulged by the counsel when ex-parte order was passed and furthermore no notice was given by the counsel before pleading no instructions in the matter. It is also averred in the application that counsel had assured him that as and when his presence would be required before the Court, requisite information would be furnished to him. With all these pleas and emphasizing that the suit pertains to immovable property, appellant craved for setting aside the ex-parte decree. Contesting the application, respondent-plaintiff filed a detailed reply. In the return, respondent-plaintiff has averred that it is a clear case of callousness and total apathy on the part of appellant in contesting the suit and therefore no plausible cause much less sufficient is forthcoming for setting aside ex-parte decree. The learned trial Court, after hearing rival submissions, by the order impugned declined the prayer of appellant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff and perused the materials available on record. 8. The crucial question, which has cropped up in the instant appeal, cannot be adjudicated while divorcing the nature of suit. Unquestionably, the subject matter of suit was immovable property and the respondent-plaintiff sought a relief for specific performance of contract and perpetual injunction. The remedy of specific performance of contract is an equitable remedy founded on the principles of equity, justice and good conscience. In common parlance, a suit for partition, redemption of mortgage, or specific performance of contract, warrant bipartite adjudication for doing substantial justice between the parties. It is true that a total callousness, apathy or negligence on the part of a defendant cannot be excused. 9. In the instant case, the ex-parte decree was passed on 17th of August 2010 and requisite application for setting aside the same was filed by appellant on 20th of September 2010 upon receiving information from his counsel as late as on 9th of September 2010, therefore, it cannot be said that the application for setting aside ex-parte decree was filed with an inordinate delay or laches. The reasons for not participating in the suit proceedings, as spelt out in the application by the appellant, may not be full-proof but it would be rather difficult to comprehend that those reasons are purely illusory. Backhanded compliment of the learned Senior Counsel for respondent regarding reasons incorporated in the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC are not appealing and therefore unhesitatingly I feel inclined to repudiate the same in the peculiar facts of the instant case. The legislature in its wisdom has provided remedy under Rule 13 of Order 9 CPC for setting aside ex-parte decree subject to the condition that defendant had shown sufficient cause which prevented him from appearing when the suit was called for hearing. “Sufficient cause” is not a magic phrase and while construing it, Court is not expected to take purely idealistic or pedantic view. The endeavour of the Court, while construing “sufficient cause” is to have a pragmatic approach to advance substantial justice. In totality, the Court feels that “sufficient cause” should be construed liberally to farther the interest of justice. 10. As observed hereinabove, the subject matter of suit is also pivotal while construing the words “sufficient cause”, and therefore, in my opinion, the learned trial Court has seriously erred in taking too technical a view for non-suiting the appellant in his pursuit of setting aside the ex-parte decree. One more redeeming fact is that application for setting aside ex-parte decree was laid by the appellant promptly after receiving information from the counsel and therefore the learned trial Court ought not to have declined his prayer for setting aside ex-parte decree. 11. Be that as it may, the ex-parte order in the matter was passed on 15th of March 2010 and almost after five months ex-parte decree is passed and during the interregnum appellant has not appeared, cannot lose sight of the Court. Moreover, denying respondent-plaintiff to reap the fruits flowing from an ex-parte decree is also a very significant fact which warrants consideration to mitigate his discomfort and inconvenience. Therefore, while exercising discretion in favour of appellant for setting aside ex-parte decree, in my considered opinion, it would be just and appropriate to compensate the respondent-plaintiff with costs. In the backdrop of peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, saddling the appellant with cost of Rs.21,000/- for setting aside ex-parte decree would sufficiently meet the ends of justice. 12. In the backdrop of peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, saddling the appellant with cost of Rs.21,000/- for setting aside ex-parte decree would sufficiently meet the ends of justice. 12. In view of foregoing discussion, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 7th of September 2015 is set aside and the application of appellant under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex-parte decree dated 17th of August 2010 is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.21,000/-. The appellant shall pay the cost of Rs.21,000/- to first respondent-plaintiff within ten days or deposit the same with the learned trial Court. 13. The parties with their respective counsels shall appear before the learned trial Court on 15th of December 2017. 14. As the suit is pending since 2008, the learned trial Court is expected to proceed with the trial with promptitude and decide the same as early as possible.