Held : The only point for consideration in this revision is whether the applicant has made out a case that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance on 6-9-1971. The expression 'sufficient cause' has not been defined in the Code and it depends upon the appreciation and circumstances of each case for which no hard and fast rule could be laid down except that the Courts must exercise the discretion judicially in the matter of restoration of cases in setting aside the exparte decree. The real test in determining that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance of a party is to see whether the party made diligently, efforts to appears on the date of hearing, but was prevented from doing so, by some such circumstances over which he had no control. If it is so established, the case must be restored. The conclusions drawn by the learned District Judge are based on appreciation of evidence, which could not be said to be unreasonable or unsupportable by the record. The impugned order is well reasoned and does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. Todal v. purshotamlal, 1962 MPLJ Note 173, Bhagirathi Bai v. Chandrakant Chawla, 1961 MPLJ Note 46, Nand Kumarsingh v. S