JUDGMENT : RAVI NATH TILHARI, J. 1. Heard Sri Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri Virupaksha Dattatreya Gouda, learned counsel representing Sri Vivekananda Virupaksha, learned counsel for respondent No. 8. 2. This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC has been filed by the appellant who is the applicant in E.A. Nos. 932 of 2023 and E.A. No. 290 of 2019 filed under Order 21 Rule 58 of CPC in E.P. No. 52 of 2007 in M.C. No. 185 of 2001. By means of this appeal, the appellant challenges the rejection of her application E.A. No. 932 of 2023 under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC by an order dated 11.09.2023. 3. The respondent No. 1-M/s. Karnataka State Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd., is the Decree Holder (D.Hr.) in M.C. No. 185 of 2001. Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 are the Judgment Debtors (J.Drs.). In E.P. No. 52 of 2007 for execution of decree by respondent No. 1, the property was attached. The appellant filed the application i.e. E.A. No. 290 of 2019 under Order 21 Rule 58, claiming the property. The said application was dismissed in non-prosecution on 04.07.2023 and for setting aside that order, E.A. No. 932 of 2023 was filed under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC which has been rejected on 11.09.2023. 4. The respondent No. 8 is the auction purchaser in the auction by Execution Court which vide order dated 17.11.2023 confirmed the sale. 5. In the present appeal by interim order dated 22.11.2023, while admitting the appeal, the further proceedings of the EP were stayed for a specific period, which interim order was extended from time to time. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had shown the sufficient cause for her non appearance on 04.07.2023. The execution Court committed illegality in rejecting the application. He submits that under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC, if there was sufficient cause for the non appearance when the suit was called on for hearing i.e. on the particular date, the application should have been allowed. But, the Execution Court considering the previous dates/events has rejected the application and in that light, it considered the cause shown as not sufficient. He places reliance in the case of G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada, (2000) 3 SCC 54 . 7. But, the Execution Court considering the previous dates/events has rejected the application and in that light, it considered the cause shown as not sufficient. He places reliance in the case of G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada, (2000) 3 SCC 54 . 7. Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 submits that previously also the applicant’s application was rejected. He submits that the cause shown was not sufficient and no illegality has been committed by the Execution Court in passing the order impugned. 8. Sri Virupaksha Dattatreya Gouda, learned counsel representing Sri Vivekananda Virupaksha, learned counsel for respondent No. 8 submits that there are no bona-fides in filing the application. The cause shown is not sufficient. He submits that previously also applications under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC were filed by the other persons claiming to have purchased the same property from the same appellant which were also rejected for want of prosecution. He places reliance in Longjam Bijoy Singh v. Keisham Irabot Singh, CRP (C.R.P. Art 227) No. 40 of 2014 dated 04.02.2022 High Court of Manipur at Imphal, to contend that there should be bona-fides and sufficient cause to allow the application. 9. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 10. In view of the submissions advanced, the following point arises for our consideration: “Whether the rejection of the appellant’s application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC is justified?” 11. The facts are not in dispute. The appellant filed the petition under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC to raise the attachment order. Notice was issued to the respondents in the petition. They filed counter. The matter was adjourned from time to time i.e. from 27.09.2019 to 13.12.2019 on the ground that the petitioner was not ready. The petitioner filed chief affidavit on 31.12.2019. The matter was adjourned from time to time till 24.03.2020. She did not appear and did not file examination in chief. On 09.04.2020, the matter was adjourned due to outbreak of corona till 31.12.2022. During the said period, as observed by the Execution Court, the appellant did not appear even through virtual mode. On 03.03.2023 a joint memo was filed by both the parties to refer the matter to lok adalat for settlement. The matter was not settled. On 09.04.2020, the matter was adjourned due to outbreak of corona till 31.12.2022. During the said period, as observed by the Execution Court, the appellant did not appear even through virtual mode. On 03.03.2023 a joint memo was filed by both the parties to refer the matter to lok adalat for settlement. The matter was not settled. It was listed before Execution Court for examination of the appellant, PW1 on 08.04.2022 and from 08.04.2022 to 02.11.2022, the appellant - PW1 remained absent. EA was dismissed on 02.11.2022. However, the application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC was allowed on 28.11.2022. The matter was again referred to lok adalat but it was not settled and was sent back to regular Court. From 08.02.2023 to 15.03.223, the matter was adjourned for examination of PW1. Again on 24.03.2023, the Court dismissed her petition for default. Thereafter on 17.04.2023, the application under Order 9 Rue 9 CPC was allowed. The chief affidavit of PW1 was filed. The matter was posted to 18.04.2023 for cross examination. On 18.04.2023, the appellant changed her counsel. On 25.04.2023, the additional chief affidavit was filed. Ex.A1 to A4 were marked and matter was posted to 01.05.2023 for cross examination. On 01.05.2023, PW1 was present but stated that she was going to compromise the matter. So the matter was again referred to lok adalat on 08.05.2023 from where it was again returned to regular Court on 13.05.2023 as it could not be settled; both the parties being absent. The matter was posted to 26.06.2023 for cross examination of PW1. On 26.06.2023, she was not present. On costs of Rs.500/- the matter was posted to 04.07.2023. On 04.07.2023 also the PW1 was not present. The order was passed and the petition E.A. No. 290 of 2019 was dismissed. 12. The appellant filed application EA No. 932 of 2023 under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC which was rejected on 11.09.2023. 13. From the aforesaid, it is evident that, on the request of the parties, the matter was sent to lok adalat thrice, but it could not be settled for one reason or the other. Consequently, the same was sent back to the regular Court. 14. It is further evident that inspite of many opportunities, the appellant as PW1 did not timely file the chief examination and then, did not produce her for cross examination. Consequently, the same was sent back to the regular Court. 14. It is further evident that inspite of many opportunities, the appellant as PW1 did not timely file the chief examination and then, did not produce her for cross examination. The submissions of the learned counsels for the respondent Nos.1 & 8 therefore have got some force that the appellant is delaying the proceedings, but we can also not loose sight of the fact that after the previous petitions under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC were allowed, setting aside the previous proceedings of dismissal in default; as also the corona pandemic 2019; which was also a factor for delay, the previous conduct of proceedings ought not to have influenced, so much to the learned Execution Court, in rejecting the EA No. 932 of 2023 and particularly when it found and recorded that the cause shown for dismissal on 04.07.2023 was supported by medical reports of the appellant to which we would shortly advert. 15. Before proceeding further we would refer to Order 9 Rule 9 CPC. 16. Order 9 Rule 9 CPC reads as under: 9. Decree against plaintiff by default bars fresh suit: (1) Where a suit is wholly or partly dismissed under rule 8, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action. But he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside, and if he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the dismissal upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit. (2) No order shall be made under this rule unless notice of the application has been served on the opposite party. 17. So, with respect to the provisions of Order 9 Rule 9 CPC we have to consider the cause shown for the non-appearance of the appellant when the suit was called on for hearing i.e. on the particular date i.e. which is 04.07.2023. 18. In G.P. Srivastava (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “7. 17. So, with respect to the provisions of Order 9 Rule 9 CPC we have to consider the cause shown for the non-appearance of the appellant when the suit was called on for hearing i.e. on the particular date i.e. which is 04.07.2023. 18. In G.P. Srivastava (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “7. Under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC an ex-parte decree passed against a defendant can be set aside upon satisfaction of the Court that either the summons were not duly served upon the defendant or he was prevented by any ‘sufficient cause’ from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing. Unless ‘sufficient cause’ is shown for non-appearance of the defendant in the case on the date of hearing, the Court has no power to set aside an ex-parte decree. 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 erring party. Sufficient cause for the purpose of Order 9 Rule 13 has to be construed as elastic expression for which no hard and fast guidelines can be prescribed. The courts have 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 to 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 initiated against him, he cannot be penalized for his previous negligence which had been overlooked and thereby condoned earlier. In a case where 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 can be compensated by adequate costs and the lis decided on merits.” 19. The said judgment is under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. For the absence of a party in the case the other side can be compensated by adequate costs and the lis decided on merits.” 19. The said judgment is under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. However, from reading of both the provisions, Rule 13 & Rule 9 of Order 9, it is evident that in both the applicant has to satisfy the Court that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance when the suit was called on for hearing. 20. Order 9 Rule 13 CPC reads as under: 13. Setting aside decree ex-parte against defendant: In any case in which a decree is passed ex-parte against a defendant, he may apply to the Court by which the decree was passed for an order to set it aside; and if he satisfies the Court that the summons was not duly served, or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the decree as against him upon such terms as to costs, payment into Court or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit: Provided that where the decree is of such a nature that it cannot be set aside as against such defendant only it may be set aside as against all or any of the other defendants also: Provided further than no Court shall set aside a decree passed ex-parte merely on the ground that there has been an irregularity in the service of summons, if it is satisfied that the defendant had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiff’s claim. Explanation - Where there has been an appeal against a decree passed ex-parte under this rule, and the appeal has been disposed of an any ground other than the ground that the appellant has withdrawn the appeal, no application shall lie under this rule for setting aside that ex-parte decree. 21. Therefore, the judgment in G.P. Srivastava (1st supra) in our view would be applicable to the case under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC as well. The appellant therefore could not be penalized for her previous conduct of negligence. 22. 21. Therefore, the judgment in G.P. Srivastava (1st supra) in our view would be applicable to the case under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC as well. The appellant therefore could not be penalized for her previous conduct of negligence. 22. We may also refer Davinder Pal Sehgal v. Partap Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. (2002) 3 SCC 156 , in which one of the submissions advanced was that the application for restoration under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC was dismissed earlier for non prosecution. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that such earlier dismissal could not be taken to be a ground for throwing out the restoration application i.e. for another time, as previously the High Court had set aside the order of Trial Court dismissing the restoration application for non-prosecution and the order attained finality. The relevant observation in Para 7 of Davinder Pal Sehgal (supra) is as under: “The submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that application for restoration filed on behalf of the plaintiffs was dismissed earlier for non-prosecution cannot be taken to be a ground for throwing out the restoration application as the High Court on the earlier occasion set aside order of the trial court whereby restoration application was dismissed for non-prosecution and the said order attained finality.” 23. In the present case also the previous order setting aside the dismissal in default attained finality and on that ground the present application could not be rejected by the Trial Court. 24. The cause shown in the petition under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC was that on 04.07.2023, the appearance could not be made as the appellant was hospitalised on 29.06.2023 at Divya Sree hospitals, Anantapuramu and she was under treatment for operation of kidneys. In support of the said cause, the documents were also filed. The Execution Court also recorded in Para-9 of its order as under: “.........No doubt to show her bona-fides, the petitioner filed medical bills that she underwent treatment and hospitalized from 15.05.2023 to 18.05.2023 and underwent for 2D ECHO Test on 30.06.2023. The reports show that the petitioner suffering with ailment......” 25. However, the Court rejected the application observing as follows: “..........but was not bed ridden and not advised to take bed rest. The reports show that the petitioner suffering with ailment......” 25. However, the Court rejected the application observing as follows: “..........but was not bed ridden and not advised to take bed rest. Hence, only to show cause for her absence, the petitioner filed the medical reports, which are not helpful to the petitioner as her absence is not genuine on the ground of ailment.......” 26. We find that the reason assigned by the Court for being not satisfied, for condoning the delay is too strict a view to be taken. A lenient view, in such matter, in favour of opportunity of hearing, to do complete justice deserves to be taken. The Courts have always leaned in favour of opportunity of hearing and have construed ‘sufficient cause’ liberally and leniently. In our view sufficient cause was shown for non appearance on 04.07.2023 when the suit was called for hearing. The view taken by Execution Court cannot be said even a possible view, in the light of the observations made by Execution Court, with respect to the medical report, as reproduced above. The appellant, it appears to us, has in fact been penalized for her previous conduct. The order dated 04.07.2023 should have been set aside granting at least one more opportunity. The discretion has not been exercised by the Court judiciously. 27. In Longjam Bijoy Singh (supra) the cause shown was mistake of the counsel in not attending the Court. The Manipur High Court did not find that to be sufficient. In the present case, the cause shown is sufficient. The aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case. 28. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 8, that previously also some applications were filed by some other persons which were rejected in non prosecution, in our view even if be taken as correct; that would not take away the right of the appellant to seek her remedy against the order passed in her case against her. 29. Thus considered to provide an opportunity to the appellant, the order dated 11.09.2023 is set aside. We also set aside the order dated 04.07.2023, having recorded that the cause shown for non appearance on 04.07.2023, was sufficient. The appeal is allowed however with the following further directions: (i) The appellant’s case in EA No. 290 of 2019 shall be considered in accordance with law. We also set aside the order dated 04.07.2023, having recorded that the cause shown for non appearance on 04.07.2023, was sufficient. The appeal is allowed however with the following further directions: (i) The appellant’s case in EA No. 290 of 2019 shall be considered in accordance with law. (ii) The appellant shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and would produce PW1 for cross examination, on the next date, to be fixed by the Execution Court, on the receipt of this order. (iii) The cost imposed vide order dated 26.06.2023, if not paid by the appellant, shall be paid before the next date, to be fixed by the Court, pursuant to Para (ii) supra. (iv) The Execution Court, if adjournment is considered necessary, shall record reasons for such adjournment and if required shall be subject to imposition of costs. (v) The auction and the rights of the auction purchaser/respondent No. 8 shall remain subject to the orders passed in EA No. 290 of 2019 in E.P. No. 52 of 2007 in M.C. No. 185 of 2001. 30. No order as to costs. 31. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.