IMPORTANT POINT
In an application under Order IX Rue 13 the court should confine itself to considering sufficiency or not of cause shown for not appearing in the matter on the date of hearing.

JUDGMENT :

R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This civil appeal is preferred by the defendant, in Original Suit No. 92/1997 on the file of Sub-Judge, Chidambaram, aggrieved by the order dated 17.04.2014, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dismissing the Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No. 1202 of 2014. By virtue of the aforesaid order, the High Court has confirmed the order of the Trial Court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC.

3. The respondent-plaintiff has filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance of the Agreement dated 11.10.1995. It is a case of the respondent-plaintiff that out of total consideration of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs), he has already paid Rs.2,25,000/-(Rupees Two Lakh Twenty-Five Thousand) and in spite of his readiness to pay the balance amount, the appellant-defendant is not ready to execute the sale deed by receiving the balance consideration amount. During the trial, the aforesaid suit was listed for hearing on 16.03.2009. On the aforesaid date, on the ground that there was no representation on behalf of the appellant, the appellant was put ex-parte, and ex-parte decree was passed, decreeing the suit.

4. The appellant-defendant has filed the application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, for setting aside the ex-parte decree in I.A. No. 117/2009. In the aforesaid application, the case of the appellant was that on 16.03.2009, there was a boycott of all the courts on the call of Bar Association, as such, all the advocates boycotted the courts in the District of Cuddalore including Chidambaram District. He has also pleaded that as he was suffering from viral fever, he also did not attend the court. It is a case of the appellant that in spite of showing sufficient cause for not attending the court on 16.03.2009, the Trial Court has erroneously rejected the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC.

5. The Trial Court, while considering the application filed by the appellant herein, under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, has considered the past events in the suit stating that the appellant is trying to protract the litigation dismissed the application by order dated 30.06.2009. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-defendant has filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 15/2009 before the Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No.1, Chidambaram. Same was dismissed by order dated 13.07.2010. The matter was further carried by way of Civil Revision Petition No. 1202 of 2014 before the High Court, which also ended in dismissal by order dated 17.04.2014.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the relevant material on record.

7. Mainly it is contended by learned counsel appearing for the appellant that on 16.03.2009, there was a total boycott of courts by the advocates in the District of Cuddalore including Chidambaram District, therefore, his counsel could not appear before the Court when the matter was called. Further, it is submitted that even the appellant was suffering from viral fever, as such, he also could not appear on the said date. It is pleaded that though there was sufficient cause shown, the Trial Court, erroneously by considering the past events anterior to 16.03.2009, has dismissed the application. It is contended that the appellate and the revisional courts also committed same error in rejecting the plea of the appellant by looking at the past events. It is mainly contended that when the application is filed under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, the relevant consideration should have been confined to whether the appellant herein has shown any sufficient cause or not for not appearing in the matter when it was called on 16.03.2009. It is submitted that the reasons assigned in the impugned orders for rejection of the application is irrelevant. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the