ORDER : The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in the suit O.S No. 52/2015 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvalla. 2. The parties shall be hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs and the defendants for the sake of convenience. 3. The defendants did not file written statement and they were set ex parte in the suit. On 31.10.2018, an ex parte decree was passed in the suit against the defendants. 4. The defendants filed Annexure-5 application for setting aside the ex parte decree passed against them. Annexure-6 application was also filed by them for condoning the delay of 146 days in preferring Annexure-5 application for setting aside the ex parte decree. 5. Subsequently, the defendants filed O.P.(C) No. 1297/2019 before this Court for issuing a direction to the court below to expedite the disposal of Annexure-5 and Annexure-6 applications. As per Annexure-7 judgment dated 26.04.2019, this Court directed the court below to expedite the disposal of the aforesaid two applications positively before the date 30.04.2019. 6. On 26.04.2019, the court below dismissed for default Annexure-5 and Annexure-6 applications filed by the defendants for the reason that they were absent before the court and that there was no representation for them on that date. 7. On 27.04.2019, the defendants filed Annexure-9 and Annexure-10 applications before the court below for restoration of Annexure-5 and Annexure-6 applications. 8. The defendants also approached this Court by filing O.P.(C) No. 1693/2019 for expeditious disposal of Annexure-9 and Annexure-10 applications by the court below. As per Annexure-13 judgment dated 11.07.2019, this Court gave a direction to the court below to dispose of Annexure-9 and Annexure-10 applications within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of that judgment before the court below. 9. As per the order dated 23.10.2019, which is impugned in this revision petition, the learned Munsiff allowed Annexure-10 application on the condition that an amount of Rs.3,000/- shall be paid as costs to the plaintiffs by the defendants. The legality and propriety of the aforesaid order are challenged in this revision petition. 10. Heard the learned counsel who appeared on both sides. Perused the records. 11. It is stated in paragraph 4 of the revision petition that the court below allowed Annexure-9 and Annexure-10 applications as per the impugned order. The legality and propriety of the aforesaid order are challenged in this revision petition. 10. Heard the learned counsel who appeared on both sides. Perused the records. 11. It is stated in paragraph 4 of the revision petition that the court below allowed Annexure-9 and Annexure-10 applications as per the impugned order. However, on a perusal of the impugned order, it can be seen that it is an order allowing only Annexure-10 application (I.A No. 1427/2019) and as per this order, only I.A No. 363/2019 (Annexure-5 application) filed for setting aside the ex parte decree has been restored to file. 12. Sri.Jacob.P Alex, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, submitted that the past conduct of the defendants in the suit in adopting dilatory tactics has not been taken into consideration by the court below. Learned counsel pointed out that, inspite of innumerable opportunities granted to the defendants, they did not file written statement and they were set ex parte in the suit. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners would also submit that the defendants did not show sufficient cause for their absence before the court on the date of dismissal of Annexure-5 and Annexure-6 applications. 13. Per contra, Sri.K.Ramachandran, learned Senior Counsel, who appeared for the third respondent, pointed out that the counsel who appeared for the defendants in the court below was a senior member of the bar and he was ready to give evidence and he had filed proof affidavit to show that he could not appear before the court in time on the date of hearing the applications because the sugar level in his body came down suddenly on his way to the court. It is also pointed out that the counsel who appeared for the plaintiffs in the court below did not wish to cross-examine the counsel for the defendants. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that there was no wilful default or laches on the part of the defendants in appearing before the court below on the date of hearing of Annexure-5 and Annexure-6 applications and therefore, the court below is perfectly justified in passing the impugned order. 14. Annexure-10 application was filed by the defendants under Order IX Rule 9 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). 14. Annexure-10 application was filed by the defendants under Order IX Rule 9 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). Annexure-10 application filed by the defendants for restoration of the application filed by them under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code, which was dismissed in default, is not expressly covered by the provisions of Order IX of the Code. Section 141 of the Code, which deals with miscellaneous proceedings, is relevant in this context. Section 141 of the Code states that, the procedure provided in the Code in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction. The Explanation to Section 141 of the Code provides that the expression "proceedings" includes proceedings under Order IX of the Code. Dismissal of an application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code for default is an order passed in miscellaneous proceedings and it is expressly included in the explanation provided to Section 141 of the Code. It follows that, Annexure-10 application filed by the defendants is maintainable under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code (See Jaswant Singh v. Parkash Kaur : AIR 2017 SC 5275 ). 15. Now, the only question to be decided is whether the defendants have shown sufficient cause for their non-appearance before the court below on the date of hearing of Annexure-5 application. What is stated in the affidavit filed in support of Annexure10 application is that the counsel who was appearing for the defendants was diabetic and on his way to the court, while driving the car, the sugar level in his body came down and he had to take rest and he could not reach the court in time. The impugned order reveals that the counsel who was appearing for the defendants in the court below, who was a senior member of the bar, was ready to give evidence in this regard and he filed proof affidavit but the counsel for the plaintiffs did not wish to cross-examine him. 16. Annexure-12 is the statement of objection filed by the plaintiffs to Annexure-10 application. 16. Annexure-12 is the statement of objection filed by the plaintiffs to Annexure-10 application. The reason stated by the defendants in the affidavit filed in support of Annexure-10 application, for the inability of their counsel to reach the court in time, is not specifically controverted in Annexure-12 objection filed by the plaintiffs. On the other hand, the attempt of the plaintiffs was to project before the court the past conduct of the defendants in the proceedings in the suit. 17. There is no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that past conduct of the defendants should be taken into consideration in deciding the question whether the application which was dismissed for default should be restored or not. In deciding whether an application, which has been dismissed for default, shall be restored or not, what is material to be considered is only whether the party has shown sufficient cause for non-appearance on the date of hearing of the application which was dismissed for default. 18. In the context of dealing with applications filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code, in G.P.Srivastava v. R.K.Raizada : AIR 2000 SC 1221 , the Supreme Court has held as follows: “The words "was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing" must be liberally construed to enable the court to do complete justice between the parties particularly when no negligence or inaction is imputable to the erring party. Sufficient cause for the purpose of Order IX Rule 13 has to be construed as an elastic expression for which no 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 circumstances of each case. The "sufficient cause" for non-appearance refers 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 penalised 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 his favour, provided the absence was not mala fide or intentional. In a case where the defendant approaches the court immediately and within the statutory time specified, the discretion is normally exercised in his favour, provided the absence was not mala fide or intentional. For the absence of a party in the case the other side an be compensated by adequate costs and the lis decided on merits”. 19. The principles stated above apply to applications filed under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code also. 20. It is trite that the endeavor of the courts must always be to see that a lis is decided on its merits rather than on default. 21. Whatever hardship that would be caused to the revision petitioners by restoration of the application filed for setting aside the ex parte decree has been ordered to be compensated by the court below by payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- to them. 22. The impugned order does not suffer from any material irregularity. It cannot be termed as an order passed without jurisdiction or an order passed in illegal exercise of jurisdiction. The revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs.