A. K. Sikri ( 1 ) THIS Suit was filed by the plaintiff-Bank for recovery of money against the. defendants, who are five in numbers, in the year 1985. The defendants 1,2 and 5 after service of summons, did not appear and were proceeded ex parte. The defendants 3 and 4 although appeared initially and contested the Suit, stopped appearing after a particular period. They were also proceeded ex-parte and ex-parte decree was passed on 3/10/1997. However, the plaintiff has not been able to enjoy the fruits of this decree and even after 16 years of the filing of the Suit the matter is kept alive by the defendants 3 and 4 (hereinafter referred to as the applicants, for short) as the present application has been filed under the provisions of order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 3/10/1997. Obviously, the question to be determined in this application is as to whether there is sufficient cause for non-appearance of the applicants in the Suit proceedings. The plea in support of sufficient cause raised by the applicants is the one which is often taken, namely, fault on the part of their advocate and it is contended that the applicants should not be made to suffer due to the fault of their advocate, whether such a plea is available to the applicants in the facts and circumstances of this case needs to be examined. ( 2 ) BEFORE embarking on this enquiry it would be appropriate to note certain material dates ;-It is stated in the application that the applicants had engaged an advocate who without notice to the applicants suddenly stopped appearing from 2/04/1991 and did not appear in spite of default notice sent to him. In the meanwhile, whenever the applicants enquired about their case they were informed that the matter is listed for evidence and as and when the applicants were required to be there, an intimation from the Office, of the lawyer would be sent. In spite of those assurances the lawyer did not appear and the applicants suffered ex-parte decree and that. such non-appearance of the applicants constitutes sufficient cause as it was bonafide. In spite of those assurances the lawyer did not appear and the applicants suffered ex-parte decree and that. such non-appearance of the applicants constitutes sufficient cause as it was bonafide. The applicants came to know about the ex-parte decree only when the applicants received letter dated 27th August, i998 from the plaintiff-bank on 29/09/1998 calling Upon the applicants to pay the amount under decree. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicants in support of his submission stated that the applicants should not suffer because of the fault of the lawyer and relied upon the following Judgments :- 1. Sagaayam Engineering Works V. M/s. Srivatsa Tube Corporation reported in AIR 1989 Madras 237 2. Shyam Lal Dhar V. M/s. Ply Board industries reported in AIR 1981 Jandk 95 3. Nivrutti Nana Uaghmare V. Narayan mahadeo Mokal and others reported in AIR 1980 Bombay 250. 4. Ranipet Chemicals and Engineering Company pvt. Ltd. V. Swastik Stainless Steel Stores reported in AIR 1986 Calcutta 76 5. Lajpat. Rai and others*v. State of punjab and others reported in AIR 1981 SC 1401 6. Savithri Amma Seethamma V. Aratha karthy and others reported in AIR 1983 SC 318 . ( 4 ) THERE is no absolute proposition of law that all cases of mistakes on the part of the advocate or pleader would constitute sufficient cause, what is to be seen is as to whether absence of the advocate was bonafide. This is to be examined in conjunction with the conduct of the party who had engaged advocate viz. whether he was persuing his case diligently or the conduct and approach was so callous that it amounted to negligence. If this is so then non-appearance would not be bonafide and it would not constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of Order IX Rule 13 of the code of Civil Procedure. Failure of lawyer to appear for no fault of the party is not necessarily sufficient cause for non-appearance of the party (Refer : Guljan bibi V. Nazir-ud-din Mia reported in AIR 1975 Goa 30 ). It is necessary for the applicant to establish that the applicants did all that was required under the law to retain the advocate and that the applicants were pursuing the case with due diligence. In the instant case both the applicants and their advocate have not acted with due diligence and the case depicts lack of bonafides. It is necessary for the applicant to establish that the applicants did all that was required under the law to retain the advocate and that the applicants were pursuing the case with due diligence. In the instant case both the applicants and their advocate have not acted with due diligence and the case depicts lack of bonafides. In so far as applicants lawyer is concerned he stopped appearing from 2/04/1991. Admittedly even default notice was served upon the applicants counsel which was duly received by him on 22/05/1992. However, still he did not appear. Not only this he inspected the file on 2 4/04/1993 which shows that he had the knowledge of the proceedings and the next date of hearing. Still he chose not to appear. what was the reason for non-appearance of the counsel? No satisfactory explanation for this is forthcoming. It is not stated in the application that the applicants contacted their lawyer after coming to know of the ex-parte decree and tried to find the reasons for applicants lawyer not appearing. In para 9 of the application, the applicants have simply stated that after coming to know of the ex-parte decree they engaged another lawyer to inspect the file and filed the present application on their behalf. It is strange that the applicants after coming to know of the ex-parte decree would not even enquire from their earlier advocate as to why and under what circumstances he stopped appearing and why such ex-parte decree was passed. This shows that everything was not alright on applicants front as well. There is something amiss about which there is no explanation by the applicants. ( 5 ) NOT only this the conduct of the applicants shows sheer negligence in defending the present case. Their counsel stopped appearing in 2/04/1991 and the ex-parte decree was passed only in October 1997. The intervening period was more than six and a half years. In fact, according to them, the came to know of the ex-parte decree only on 29/08/1998 and therefore for a period of almost 7 years they did not bother to get in touch with the advocate or find the progress of the case. The intervening period was more than six and a half years. In fact, according to them, the came to know of the ex-parte decree only on 29/08/1998 and therefore for a period of almost 7 years they did not bother to get in touch with the advocate or find the progress of the case. Why the applicants would be satisfied with the alleged representation on the part of their advocate, as stated in the application, that the applicants were not required and they would receive a communication from their advocate as and when they are required to be present in the Court. No proceedings for such a long period would have made them suspicious. From this one can reasonably. infer that the story put forth by the applicants that they were in touch with their lawyer and the lawyer had assured them that he would inform that when they are required in the case is an after-thought plea. This explanation does not inspire confidence. The application is not even supported by affidavit of the counsel who was representing them. ( 6 ) THEREFORE, I am of the considered view that the applicants have not been able to make out sufficient ground for setting aside the ex-parte decree. No doubt the words "sufficient cause" should receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial Justice. However when it is found that the applicants were most negligent in defending the case and their non-action and want of bonafide are clearly imputable, the Court would not help such a party. After all "sufficient cause" is an elastic expression for which no hard and fast guide-lines can be given and court has to decide on the facts of each case as to whether the defendant who has suffered ex-parte decree has been able to satisfactorily show sufficient cause for non-appearance and in examining this aspect cumulative effect of all the relevant factors is to be seen. In the instant case, no doubt applicants had engaged lawyer who did not appear. However, the reason for non-appearance is not discernible and it cannot be said that he neglected or failed to appear in the case or there was no justification on the part of the lawyer not to appear. In the instant case, no doubt applicants had engaged lawyer who did not appear. However, the reason for non-appearance is not discernible and it cannot be said that he neglected or failed to appear in the case or there was no justification on the part of the lawyer not to appear. It also cannot, be said that the applicants had done all what was required of them to ensure that their counsel would represent them on all the necessary hearings. The applicants have also failed to show that they were diligent in their pursuit or acted bonafide. ( 7 ) THIS application is accordingly dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 2000/ -.