ORDER :

This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 18.05.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (FTC), Rajnandgaon in Civil MJC No. 21/2011 (Santosh Vs. Ashok and Others) by which the application filed by the appellant/defendant No.8 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 21.01.2010 passed in Civil Suit No. 20-A/2007 against the present appellant/defendant No. 8 and respondents No. 5 to 7 and 11.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 4 have filed the suit for Specific Performance of Contract against the appellant/defendant No.8 and respondents No. 5 to 7. As per the pleadings, in the plaint, an agreement dated 27.07.1995 was executed between the father of the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 and husband of plaintiff No. 4 namely Judavan Yadav and father of respondents/defendants No. 6 to 11 namely Late Radheshyam for sale of a property situated at village Basantpur, Rajnandgaon measuring area 68 x116 sq.ft. The said land was recorded in the name of Late Radheshyam in the revenue records comprising in sheet No. 27-B, Plot No. 30, area 778 Sq. mtr. for a consideration of Rs. 80,000/- out of which Rs. 76,000/- cash was received by Late Radheshyam and the sale deed was to be executed within one year of the agreement. Initially the defendant No.8 and other defendants have filed their Vakalatnama and they were represented by a counsel. Thereafter the defendant No.8 was proceeded ex parte and ultimately ex parte judgment and decree was passed.

3. Shri Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.8 submits that a joint Vakalatnma was given to the counsel to contest and defend on behalf of all the defendants including the appellant/defendant No.8. The said Vakalatnama was filed on 28.07.2006 Since counsel for the appellant/defendant No.8 was contesting the case on his behalf, he was not regularly appearing before the learned trial court. He further submits that on 22.01.2007, defendants No. 1 to 4 in the suit filed a separate Vakalatnama on their behalf through the counsel and on 01.02.2007, no instruction was stated by the counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant No.8. Thereafter on 25.02.2009, learned trial court proceeded ex parte against the appellant/defendant No.8. and ultimately on 21.01.2010 ex parte judgment and decree was passed. He further submits that on 30.10.2010, one Rajendra Shroti informed the appellant/defendant No.4 that the plaintiff No.1 in the Civil Suit namely Ashok is trying to sale the suit property. Immediately the defendant No.8/appellant enquired about the status of his case and came to know that an ex parte judgment and decree has already been passed. Thereafter on 02.11.2010, the appellant/defendant No.8 filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and after recording the evidence, by the impugned order learned court below has rejected the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC which is under challenge before this Court. Shri Agrawal further submits that the decree was passed on 21.01.2010 and as the appellant/defendant No.8 was under bonafide impression that his case is being prosecuted and defended by the counsel engaged by him and other defendants but the learned counsel has stated no instructions on behalf of appellant/defendant No.8 and other defendants therefore he could not come to know about the status and proceedings of the case resulting into passing of ex parte decree. He submits that the valuable right of the defendant No.8/appellant is involved and the learned trial court passed the impugned order without considering the sufficient cause shown by the appellant/defendant No.8 and erroneously held that the appellant/defendant No.8 could not show sufficient cause of his nonappearance. He further submits that if the ex parte judgment and decree is not set aside, it