ORDER : 1. Delay, if any, is condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. The defendants are in appeal assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 09.08.2023, passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Civil Revision No. 50 of 2021, whereby the High Court dismissed the said revision confirming the order of the Trial Court dated 26.07.2021 rejecting an application under Order IX Rule 7 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [CPC] filed by the appellant for recalling the order dated 27.10.2017, directing the suit to proceed ex parte as the defendant or his counsel failed to appear. 4. The respondent instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,55,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Five Lakh Only) along with pendente lite interest at the rate of 2% per month against the appellants in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nainital, registered as Civil Suit No. 24 of 2014. The appellant appeared before the Trial Court on 30.06.2014 and moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on 27.10.2014 praying for rejection of the plaint as it failed to disclose any cause of action. The said application is said to be still pending for disposal. 5. The respondent moved an application on 22.06.2017 seeking amendment to the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. It appears that the counsel for the appellants did not appear before the Trial Court, and as such on 27.10.2017, the Trial Court passed an order to proceed ex parte against the defendants/appellants and further directed the matter to be listed for the plaintiff's evidence on the next date which was fixed as 14.11.2017. Two years later, the Trial Court, vide order dated 25.02.2019, allowed the amendment application. The Trial Court, by order dated 05.11.2019, issued notice to the counsel for the defendants/appellants apparently for the reason that the amendment to the plaint had been allowed. Pursuant to the said notice, the appellants moved an application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC read with Section 151 CPC to recall the order dated 27.10.2017 and to afford them due opportunity to be heard. Pursuant to the said notice, the appellants moved an application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC read with Section 151 CPC to recall the order dated 27.10.2017 and to afford them due opportunity to be heard. The reason given for their non-appearance was that their counsel had assured the appellants that as and when their presence would be required, he will communicate them, and further that they had not received any communication until after the passing of the order dated 05.11.2019 whereby notice was issued to the counsel that they were contacted by the counsel. It was thereafter The said application has been rejected by the Trial Court by order dated 26.07.2021 on the finding that the defendants failed to disclose sufficient reasons for their non-appearance on 27.10.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants preferred a Civil Revision under Section 151 CPC which has since been dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants are in appeal before this Court. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. We may agree with the findings given by the Courts below that the reasons for absence on 27.10.2017 was not sufficient. However, considering the fact that the claim of the plaintiff is for substantial amount of Rs. 1,55,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Five Lakh Only) along with pendente lite interest as such it would be in the fitness of things that the present appellant be given an opportunity to contest the suit on merits and the order to proceed ex parte may be set aside. Since 2017, despite the absence of the defendants/appellants, the suit has not been decided and is still pending. Even the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the appellant as far back as 27.10.2017 is said to be still pending. Evidence has still not been led. As such in order to do complete justice between the parties and in view of the settled propositions that discretion should be exercised to advance the cause of justice rather than shutting it out on technicalities, we are of the view that the appeal deserves to be allowed. Evidence has still not been led. As such in order to do complete justice between the parties and in view of the settled propositions that discretion should be exercised to advance the cause of justice rather than shutting it out on technicalities, we are of the view that the appeal deserves to be allowed. However, at the same time, we are conscious of the fact that the plaintiff has been contesting in a suit for recovery of money of a substantial amount for the last more than 10 years, we are inclined to impose exemplary cost while allowing the appeal, which we quantify at Rs. 5 lakhs. The counsel for the appellant has agreed upon instructions to pay the plaintiff-respondent the aforesaid amount within four weeks from today. 7. Accordingly, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is allowed. The impugned orders dated 09.08.2023, 26.07.2021 and 27.10.2017 are set aside. The suit shall proceed in accordance with law from the stage prior to 27.10.2017. The cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent within four weeks from today. 8. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.