Non-Appearance and Lack of Diligence Preclude Condonation of Delay for Setting Aside Ex-Parte Decree.

The respondent filed a civil suit (No. 6A/97) against the original petitioner seeking damages and a permanent injunction.

On 16.07.2009, the petitioner was proceeded against ex-parte.

The Trial Court passed an ex-parte judgment and decree on 10.02.2012.

The petitioner subsequently moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 and Section 151 of the CPC to set aside the decree, alongside an application for condonation of delay.

The petitioner claimed her advocate, Shri Ramakant Mishra (who died on 24.01.2010), failed to communicate the status of the case and that she was personally incapacitated by illness.

The Trial Court rejected the application on 21.02.2018, noting a lack of medical evidence and the fact that the advocate died two years before the decree.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal on 14.08.2018.

1. Whether the petitioner established "sufficient cause" for non-appearance and delay in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.

2. Whether the negligence or death of a counsel constitutes a valid ground for setting aside an ex-parte decree when the litigant themselves remained inactive for a prolonged period.

The Court primarily applied Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which mandates that an ex-parte decree shall only be set aside if the defendant satisfies the court that summons were not duly served or they were prevented by "sufficient cause" from appearing.

The Court relied on the precedent Parimal v. Veena @ Bharti (AIR 2011 SC 1150), which defines "sufficient cause" as a condition where a party has not acted in a negligent manner or remained inactive, emphasizing that the test is whether the defendant honestly and sincerely intended to remain present.

It further noted the distinction between "good cause" and "sufficient cause" as established in Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar (AIR 1964 SC 993).

The High Court observed that the petitioner was proceeded ex-parte as early as 16.07.2009, yet the judgment was not delivered until 10.02.2012.

During this interval of over three years, the petitioner failed to check the status of the suit or contact her counsel, demonstrating a lack of diligence and total inactivity.

Regarding the death of Advocate Ramakant Mishra on 24.01.2010, the court found this defense insufficient because the death occurred nearly two years before the decree, and the petitioner had already been proceeded ex-parte prior to his death.

Additionally, the court highlighted the total absence of medical documentation to substantiate the claim of illness.

Applying the Parimal test, the court reasoned that the petitioner could not blame the counsel when she herself failed to establish bona fides or show that she was "prevented" by genuine difficulties.

The High Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, ruling that the petitioner’s inactivity and negligence precluded the exercise of discretionary relief. The petition was dismissed at the admission stage and the earlier interim order was vacated.