JUDGMENT B.M. Shyam Prasad, J. - This appeal is filed impugning the order dated 30.07.2013 in Misc. No. 33/2012 on the file of the XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short the civil Court). This petition in Misc. No. 33/2012 is filed by the appellants under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for setting aside the order dated 24.11.2011 in O.S. No. 7121/2004 dismissing the appellants suit for permanent injunction against the respondents for default. 2. The appellants filed the suit in O.S. No. 7121/2004 for permanent injunction while the second respondent filed cross suits in O.S. Nos. 5607/2004 and 3104/2006. The appellants suit in O.S. No. 7121/2004 and the second respondents suits in O.S. Nos. 5607/2004 and 3104/2006 were clubbed for common trial. However, by order dated 19.09.2011, the civil Court de-linked the suits. The appellants suit was listed for evidence on 09.11.2011 and on this day, the appellants, who were required to lead evidence, did not lead their evidence. The suit was adjourned to be listed on 24.11.2011. The appellants did not lead evidence even on this day. Therefore, the civil Court dismissed the suit for default. However, on the same day, the learned counsel for the appellants filed an application for recall of the order, which was not considered favourably by the civil Court. As such, the appellants filed the petition in Misc. No. 33/2012 under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 3. The appellants contended that the first of the appellants, who was conducting the proceedings in O.S. No. 7121/2004 on behalf of the other appellants, could not appear before the civil Court to lead evidence on 24.11.2011 because he was suffering from enteric fever and was advised bed rest. The appellants were bona fide in seeking adjournment on 24.11.2011 and the appellants bona fides were demonstrated by the fact that the learned counsel for the appellants filed an application on the same day for recall of the order of dismissal. The appellants to establish that the first appellant was indeed suffering from enteric fever, and therefore could not attend the Court on 24.11.2011, examined the first appellant and also relied upon the Certificate issued by the Doctor. The respondents did not cross examine the first appellant nor lead their evidence. 4. The appellants to establish that the first appellant was indeed suffering from enteric fever, and therefore could not attend the Court on 24.11.2011, examined the first appellant and also relied upon the Certificate issued by the Doctor. The respondents did not cross examine the first appellant nor lead their evidence. 4. However, the civil Court has disbelieved the Medical Certificate on the ground that it is signed by a Doctor whose name is the same as the name of the first appellant and this creates doubt about the authenticity of the Medical Certificate and the doubt is further accentuated because it is issued by an Obstetrician and Gynecologist. The civil Court has opined that the Doctor ought to have been examined and the appellants could always file another suit for permanent injunction in view of the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the civil Court could not have doubted the genuineness of the Medical Certificate only because of the similarity in the names of the first appellant and the Doctor, who has issued the Certificate and that the Certificate is issued by an Obstetrician and Gynecologist. The Certificate is produced only to establish that the first appellant was suffering from enteric fever. The learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the civil Court could not have persuaded itself to dismiss the petition on the ground that it would always be open to the appellants to file another suit for injunction. 6. Perused the impugned order and the civil Courts records. The appellants case is examined in the light of further submissions by the learned counsel for the appellants that the second respondents suits in O.S. Nos. 5607/2004 and 3104/2006 are yet pending consideration. The civil Court has dismissed the petition because the appellants remained consistently absent during the previous hearing dates and doubting the genuineness of the Medical Certificate, and also for the reason that the appellants could file another suit for permanent injunction. But, it is settled law that the Courts must examine the sufficiency of reasons offered by the defaulting party as of the date when default is made and the circumstances preceding such date must be kept out of the area of consideration. 7. But, it is settled law that the Courts must examine the sufficiency of reasons offered by the defaulting party as of the date when default is made and the circumstances preceding such date must be kept out of the area of consideration. 7. The civil Court in view of the settled law could not have dismissed the petition in such premise. The civil Court has also failed to consider that the appellants have filed the petition within the time allowed in law to file the petition under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. These overwhelming circumstances would prevail over any doubt in the genuineness of the Medical Certificate. Further, the learned counsel is also justified in his submission that another suit in respect of the same cause of action could be contested relying upon the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In these circumstances and because the emphasis in law is for a lis to be decided on merits, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order cannot sustain in law and requires to be set aside. As such, the following order: ORDER a) The appeal is allowed in part. b) The impugned order dated 30.07.2013 in Misc. No. 33/2012 on the file of the XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is set aside, and the suit in O.S. No. 7121/2004 is restored to the board of the civil Court for reconsideration. c) The parties shall appear before the civil Court without further notice of first hearing on 09.03.2020.