Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the defendant, A. Murugesan, against the order of the Madras High Court dismissing his civil revision petition. The dispute arose from Original Suit No. 92/1997 filed by the respondent, Smt. Jamuna Rani, for specific performance of an agreement dated 11.10.1995. The respondent claimed that out of a total consideration of Rs. 3,00,000, she had paid Rs. 2,25,000 and was ready to pay the balance, but the appellant refused to execute the sale deed. During trial, on 16.03.2009, the appellant was set ex-parte due to non-appearance, and an ex-parte decree was passed. The appellant filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the decree, contending that his counsel could not appear due to a total boycott of courts by advocates in the district, and he himself was suffering from viral fever. The Trial Court dismissed the application, considering the appellant's past conduct in protracting litigation. The appellate court and the High Court affirmed this decision. The Supreme Court held that the courts below erred by considering past events instead of confining to whether sufficient cause was shown for non-appearance on 16.03.2009. Relying on G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada, the Court emphasized that 'sufficient cause' must be liberally construed and that the only relevant date is the date of ex-parte proceedings. The Court found that the appellant had shown sufficient cause due to the advocates' boycott and his illness. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was allowed, and the Trial Court was directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously, preferably within six months, without expressing any opinion on the merits.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Setting Aside Ex-Parte Decree - Order IX Rule 13 CPC - Sufficient Cause - The court must confine its consideration to whether the defendant has shown sufficient cause for non-appearance on the date when the suit was called for hearing; past conduct anterior to that date is irrelevant. The expression 'sufficient cause' must be liberally construed to do complete justice, especially when no negligence or inaction is imputable. (Paras 11-13) B) Civil Procedure - Advocates' Boycott - Sufficient Cause - A total boycott of courts by advocates on the date of hearing constitutes sufficient cause for non-appearance of the defendant, as his counsel could not appear. Additionally, the defendant's illness on that date further supports the claim of sufficient cause. (Paras 7, 12) C) Specific Performance - Ex-Parte Decree - Setting Aside - In a suit for specific performance of an agreement, where the defendant shows sufficient cause for non-appearance, the ex-parte decree must be set aside to allow the matter to be decided on merits, especially when the suit involves a substantive relief. (Paras 13-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the courts below erred in dismissing the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC by considering past conduct of the defendant instead of confining to whether sufficient cause was shown for non-appearance on the date of ex-parte decree.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned orders of the Trial Court, Appellate Court, and High Court, and allowed I.A. No. 117/2009 filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. The ex-parte decree was set aside, and the suit was restored to the file of the Trial Court for disposal on merits, preferably within six months. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order IX Rule 13 CPC
- Sufficient cause for non-appearance
- Liberal construction of 'sufficient cause'
- Confinement of consideration to date of ex-parte proceedings
- Past conduct irrelevant
