ORDER : 1. The matter comes upon application filed by the appellant seeking early hearing of the case. 2. Notices of the appeal were ordered to be issued on 16.04.2018, wherein Mr. Saharan, learned counsel has already put in appearance. 3. The application seeking early hearing is allowed. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been finally heard. 4. This appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved against the order dated 17.03.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Nohar, District – Hanumangarh (‘the trial court’), whereby the application filed by the appellant under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC has been rejected. 5. The respondent filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 14.06.2002 before the Additional District Judge (Fast Track No.2), Hanumangarh, Headquarter Nohar. The suit was filed on 08.11.2004 and the same remained pending before the trial court. When the matter was fixed before the trial court on 22.02.2011, the counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant, pleaded no instructions. Based on the said submissions, the suit was directed to proceed ex-parte. Whereafter the plaintiff appears to have filed his affidavits in evidence and after hearing the plaintiff, the suit was decreed on 09.11.2011. 6. The present application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC was filed by the appellant on 19.01.2013 alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It was, inter alia, submitted that the suit was pending since 2004 and he was told by the lawyer that as and when required, he would be called and, therefore, he did not contact the lawyer. Further submissions were made that when on 20.12.2012, he came to the Court, he became aware about the passing of the ex-parte decree and, thereafter, the application has been filed on 19.01.2013. 7. The application was contested by the respondent-plaintiff. It was submitted that the appellant was well aware of passing of the ex-parte decree and no explanation whatsoever has been given for the delay caused in filing the application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC and, therefore, the applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC deserves to be dismissed. 8. 8. The trial court after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that there was no reasonable cause for absence of the appellant on 22.02.2011 when the matter was set ex-parte and, thereafter no reasonable cause has been given out for delay in fling the application seeking setting aside the ex-parte decree and consequently, rejected the applications filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Order IX, Rule 13 CPC. 9. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the matter was pending since 2004 and in 2011 when the matter was listed for evidence of the plaintiff, the counsel without informing the appellant pleaded no instructions in the matter and the trial court without issuing notice to the appellant, ordered for proceeding ex-parte. It was submitted that the appellant came to know about passing of the ex-parte decree only in December, 2012 and immediately thereafter the application was filed under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC. It is submitted that the finding of the trial court that no reasonable cause has been indicated for the delay and/or non-appearance, cannot be sustained, inasmuch as, the very fact that the counsel did not inform the appellant was reason enough not to appear before the Court on 22.02.2011 and as there was no information about passing of the ex-parte decree, the appellant could not file the application on a prior date. It was prayed that the order impugned deserves to be set aside and the applications filed by the appellant deserve to be allowed. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently supported the order impugned. It was submitted that the application filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay was laconic, it did not indicate any reason except for the fact that he was not informed by the counsel before pleading no instructions. It is submitted that for lack of any sufficient reason, the trial court was justified for dismissing the application filed by the appellant and, therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference. 11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 12. It is not in dispute that the suit was filed on 08.11.2004 and the same remained pending for over seven years and, thereafter, the same came up for the evidence of the plaintiff, on which date, the counsel representing the appellant pleaded no instructions. 13. 12. It is not in dispute that the suit was filed on 08.11.2004 and the same remained pending for over seven years and, thereafter, the same came up for the evidence of the plaintiff, on which date, the counsel representing the appellant pleaded no instructions. 13. It is none’s case that before pleading no instructions, any notice was issued by the counsel to the appellant. The said aspect also apparently is not reflected from the order-sheet dated 22.02.2011, which has been produced by counsel for the appellant for perusal of the Court. 14. Once the matter was pending for over seven years with no material progress, inasmuch as, after filing of the written statement, the matter came up for evidence before the trial court in the year 2011, if the counsel had pleaded no instructions, it was expected of the trial court to have ensured that a notice in this regard had been issued by the counsel and in case no such submission was made, a notice could have been issued by the Court to the defendant regarding the date of hearing, however, no such exercise was undertaken, resulting in, the suit proceeding ex-parte against the appellant. Thereafter, the matter remained pending for over 10 months when it was ultimately decreed ex-parte on 09.11.2011 by the trial court. It appears that despite passing of the ex-parte decree and the trial court granting two months’ time for execution of the sale deed on the plaintiff making payment of Rs.40,000/-, the said amount was not offered to the appellant and the execution application was also filed in the year 2013 i.e. after the application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC was filed, which also is a clear indication towards the fact that the appellant had no notice regarding passing of the ex-parte decree. However, the trial court, while deciding the application totally ignored the above aspects of the matter and came to the conclusion that for non-appearance on 22.02.2011, the appellant had no cause and that delay in filing the application has not been properly explained. 15. In view thereof, the order passed by the trial court cannot be sustained. However, the trial court, while deciding the application totally ignored the above aspects of the matter and came to the conclusion that for non-appearance on 22.02.2011, the appellant had no cause and that delay in filing the application has not been properly explained. 15. In view thereof, the order passed by the trial court cannot be sustained. However, looking to the fact that the appellant also did not take appropriate care of the pending litigation, resulting in passing of ex-parte decree, he would be required to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs to the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of this order, which would be a per-requisite for the trial court to proceed with the matter again. 16. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. Subject to the payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- as directed hereinbefore, the order dated 17.03.2018 passed by the trial court is quashed and set aside. The applications filed by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as Order IX, Rule 13 CPC, are allowed. The ex-parte decree dated 09.11.2011 passed in Civil Original Suit No.151/2008 (81/2004), is set aside. The parties shall appear before the trial court i.e. the court of Additional District Judge No.2, Nohar, District – Hanumangarh on 23.08.2018. Looking to the fact that the suit was filed way back in the year 2004, the trial court is directed to proceed with the matter most expeditiously.