Litigant Should Not Suffer For Counsel’s Negligence Where Sufficient Cause For Non-Appearance Is Established

The respondent/claimant filed a claim (Case No. 5/2021) following a motor vehicle accident on 11/07/2019 involving a motorcycle driven by respondent No. 2 and owned by the appellant.

The Claims Tribunal passed an ex-parte award on 14/12/2023, directing the appellant to pay ₹5,68,975/-.

The appellant’s counsel had appeared until 07/08/2023 but remained absent on 26/08/2023, leading to the ex-parte proceedings.

The appellant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC to set aside the award, citing a communication gap with his counsel due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Second District Judge, Sakti, rejected this application on 18/07/2025, finding no "sufficient cause" for non-appearance.

The appellant challenged this rejection before the High Court.

Whether the appellant established "sufficient cause" under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC to set aside the ex-parte award.

Whether a litigant should be penalized for the negligence or inaction of their appointed counsel.

The court primarily applied Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which allows for setting aside an ex-parte decree if the defendant satisfies the court that they were prevented by any "sufficient cause" from appearing.

The court relied on the precedent Rafiq & Anr. v. Munshilal & Anr. (1981) AIR (SC) 1400, which established the principle that a litigant should not suffer for the fault, negligence, or inaction of their counsel once they have entrusted the case to an advocate.

Additionally, the court emphasized the principle of adopting a "liberal approach" to ensure disputes are adjudicated on merits rather than technical defaults.

The court observed that the appellant’s counsel had been regularly attending proceedings until August 2023, suggesting that the subsequent absence was not deliberate but a result of a lapse in communication intensified by the pandemic.

Applying the Rafiq precedent, the court reasoned that the appellant, having engaged an advocate, was entitled to presume he would be properly represented and should not be penalized for the advocate's default.

The court found that upholding the lower court's refusal would result in "serious prejudice," as the appellant would be deprived of an opportunity to contest the ₹5,68,975/- liability on its merits.

Consequently, the High Court determined that the explanation provided constituted "sufficient cause" for non-appearance.

The ex-parte award dated 14/12/2023 was also set aside.

The Court held that the appellant had shown sufficient cause for his absence and remitted the matter to the Claims Tribunal for fresh adjudication on merits.

The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 15/04/2026.