An employee’s receipt of summons defeats a lack-of-notice challenge to an ex parte decree.

The Respondent supplied fancy-dress material to the Appellant school for ₹4,78,000, against which the Appellant paid an advance of ₹1,00,000.

The Respondent claimed the balance of ₹3,78,000 remained unpaid; the Appellant asserted that it had made further cash payments.

The Respondent instituted a commercial recovery suit.

Summons were accepted at the school by Joginder, an employee, and the Commercial Court later proceeded ex parte after the defendants failed to appear or file a written statement.

On 22 September 2023, the Court decreed ₹3,78,000 against the Appellant, with interest and costs.

After receiving execution notices, the Appellant applied under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the decree, claiming it had not learned of the suit summons earlier; it filed the application on 12 January 2024 and sought condonation of delay.

The Commercial Court dismissed the applications, finding the petition time-barred and the explanation insufficient, and also rejecting the Appellant’s case on the merits.

The Appellant appealed.

Whether the Appellant established sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing its Order IX Rule 13 CPC application

Whether the ex parte decree should be set aside on the ground that summons had not been duly served or that sufficient cause prevented the Appellant from appearing

Article 123 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes the limitation period for an application to set aside an ex parte decree; where summons were not duly served, limitation runs from the date the applicant had knowledge of the decree.

Under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, an ex parte decree may be set aside if summons were not duly served or the defendant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing.

Under its second proviso, a decree is not to be set aside for an irregularity in service where the defendant had notice of the hearing date and sufficient time to appear.

“Sufficient cause” requires an adequate explanation consistent with diligence and bona fides; discretion must be exercised judicially.

The Court also relied on *Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer*, (2013) 14 SCC 81, in considering the requirement of sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

The Court found no basis to disturb the Commercial Court’s conclusions.

The Appellant’s own case accepted that Joginder, then its employee, received the summons; the process server’s report also stated that he accepted them after speaking by telephone.

The Court considered the assertion that Joginder did not inform management, or later left the school, insufficient to establish non-service or sufficient cause.

The Appellant also failed to act with adequate diligence after learning of the execution proceedings: its application was filed beyond the period calculated by the Commercial Court, and the explanation for the delay—including the timing of its certified-copy application—was rejected.

The asserted payments and the pending proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act did not resolve whether the Appellant had sufficient cause for its non-appearance in the recovery suit.

It found no reason to interfere with the Commercial Court’s order and dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.