Ex Parte Decree Passed on Merits in First Appeal Cannot Be Set Aside Absent Sufficient Cause

The plaintiff/respondent, a brass parts merchant, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 42,06,250/- against the defendant/appellant for unpaid invoices and dishonored cheques

Despite service of summons and initial appearance through an advocate, the defendant failed to file a written statement or participate in subsequent hearings

The trial court decreed the suit ex parte, initially awarding 18% interest, which was later corrected to 6% under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to rectify a typographical error

The defendant appealed under Section 96 of the CPC, alleging negligence by her advocate and non-application of mind by the trial court due to stray references to unrelated facts (potatoes and telephone services) in the judgment

1. Whether the defendant made out a sufficient case to set aside the impugned judgment and decree solely on the ground that it was passed ex parte.

2. Whether the trial court’s judgment reflected a total non-application of mind due to typographical errors and inconsistencies.

Order 9 Rule 6 authorizes the court to proceed ex parte when the defendant fails to appear despite due service

Order 9 Rule 13 provides that an ex-parte decree may only be set aside if the defendant proves the summons was not served or they were prevented by "sufficient cause"

Section 96(2), an appeal lies against an ex parte decree, but the scope is limited to arguing the merits of the record rather than explaining non-appearance

Section 152 allows the court to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments

An ex parte decree is a valid, legal decree with the same force as a contested one.

The High Court rejected the appellant's contention that the ex parte nature of the decree warranted a remand. It noted that the defendant admitted receipt of summons and failed to provide any "sufficient cause" for the subsequent absence

Regarding the merits, the Court found that the plaintiff had discharged the burden of proof by presenting invoices (Exh. 17-21), ledger accounts (Exh. 24-25), and dishonored cheques (Exh. 26-34) which remained unchallenged

Addressing the alleged "non-application of mind," the Court held that the references to "potatoes" and "telephonic services" were mere typographical errors already rectified by the trial court under Section 152 CPC

Crucially, when the Court queried if the defendant would deposit the principal amount to demonstrate bona fides for a potential remand, the defendant refused

The Court affirmed that typographical errors rectified via Section 152 do not constitute non-application of mind. The trial court’s judgment and the corrected decree for Rs. 56,00,000/- with 6% interest were upheld. All interim relief was vacated, and the record was ordered returned to the trial court