Case Note & Summary
The respondent, State Bank of India, filed Special Civil Suit No. 181 of 1992 against the appellants for recovery of dues. The appellants did not file a written statement as compromise negotiations were ongoing. On the hearing date, 13.12.1994, the appellants' advocate filed an adjournment application citing personal reasons, and the appellants themselves were unable to attend because the grandmother of appellant No.2 was ill. The trial court rejected the adjournment application and decreed the suit on the same day without passing an exparte order. The appellants filed MARJI No. 21 of 1995 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the exparte decree, which was rejected by the trial court. In appeal, the High Court considered whether the appellants had sufficient cause for non-appearance. The court noted that the reasons given—illness of a family member and the advocate's inability—constituted sufficient cause. The High Court held that procedural law should be liberally construed to advance substantial justice rather than defeat it. The court set aside the impugned order and the exparte decree, subject to the appellants paying costs of Rs. 2,000 to the respondent. The appeal was allowed, and the trial court was directed to restore the suit to its original number and dispose it of expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Exparte Decree - Setting Aside - Order IX Rule 13 CPC - Sufficient Cause - The appellants failed to appear on the hearing date due to illness of a family member and the advocate's inability to attend. The trial court rejected the application for adjournment and passed an exparte decree. The High Court held that the reasons constituted sufficient cause and that procedural law should be liberally construed to advance substantial justice. The exparte decree was set aside subject to payment of costs. (Paras 1-6) B) Civil Procedure - Adjournment - Rejection of Adjournment Application - The trial court rejected the adjournment application without passing an exparte order and proceeded to decree the suit. The High Court noted that the court should have either granted adjournment or passed an exparte order before decreeing the suit. The failure to do so resulted in a decree that was effectively exparte and liable to be set aside. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants had sufficient cause for their non-appearance on the date of hearing to warrant setting aside of the exparte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 30.9.1996 passed by the learned IInd Jt. C.J.S.D. Aurangabad in MARJI No. 21 of 1995 is set aside. The exparte decree dated 13.12.1994 in Special Civil Suit No. 181 of 1992 is also set aside. The appellants shall pay costs of Rs. 2,000 to the respondent. The trial court is directed to restore the suit to its original number and dispose it of expeditiously.
Law Points
- Order IX Rule 13 CPC
- Sufficient cause for non-appearance
- Liberal construction of procedural law
- Setting aside exparte decree
