IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that 'sufficient cause' under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. must be liberally construed to ensure justice, allowing for the setting aside of ex-parte decrees when valid reasons for non-appearance are presented.

JUDGMENT :

B.S. BHANUMATHI, J.

1. This petition is filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 of C.P.C. against the order dated 01.05.2024 dismissing I.A. No. 252 of 2005 in O.S. No. 57 of 1998 on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Machilipatnam filed under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. by the revision petitioner/defendant to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 17.08.2004.

2. The suit is filed for partition by the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 against the sole defendant. After an ex-parte decree was passed on 17.08.2004, the defendant filed the petition in I.A. No. 252 of 2005 on 10.09.2004 stating that he could not appear before the Court on the days fixed due to his ill-health i.e. fever and high BP and engaged in the arrangements for the marriage of his son held on 18.08.2004. The petition was opposed by the respondents/plaintiffs by filing counter stating that the petitioner had full knowledge of the appointment of the Commissioner for recording evidence of PW-1 in cross-examination and that PW-1 is an old lady of more than eighty (80) years age and later PW-2 was examined in the Court and further that the petitioner had been given ample opportunity, but the petitioner had not availed the same and thus the trial Court had passed the ex-parte preliminary decree. Further, the respondents did not admit that the petitioner had suffered from ill-health and also busy in the arrangements for the marriage of his son.

3. After hearing the both parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition by observing that the learned counsel for the petitioner had received notice of execution of warrant for recording the evidence of the PW-1 twice on 27.07.2004 and 06.08.2004 and therefore the Commissioner had fixed another date i.e. on 09.08.2004 for recording the evidence of PW-1 and given another notice on 06.08.2004 in that regard, but having knowledge of the execution of the warrant, the petitioner had not appeared before the Commissioner on 09.08.2004 and in addition to that the learned counsel for the petitioner had filed a memo dated 12.08.2004 reporting he had no instructions from the petitioner. Therefore, the trail Court observed that these are the instances which show that the petitioner was not interested in the proceedings and wanted to drag on the proceedings by filing the present petition.

4. That apart, the trial Court observed that the reasons stated by the petitioner for non-prosecution of the matter are contradictory because, on one hand the petitioner stated that he was suffering from ill-health and on the other hand, he stated that he was busy in the arrangements for the marriage of his son. Since no medical record showing his ill-health was filed, the trial Court made a note of it, however regarding the marriage of the son of the petitioner held on 18.08.2004 which was evidenced by the wedding invitation filed before the Court, no adverse observation was made by the trial Court about the performance of the marriage, but observed that the previous dates fixed by the Commissioner for recording the cross-examination of PW-1 had not come in conflict with the date of the marriage of the son of the petitioner. The trial Court further noted that the petitioner was aware that his mother who died during the proceedings, being an old lady, was unable to appear before the Court and therefore the petitioner ought to have been vigilant and did not bother to give instructions to his counsel and as such he cannot seek to set aside the ex-parte decree. Finally, the trail Court found that the reasons stated by the petitioner are not sufficient to set aside the ex-parte decree.

5. Aggrieved by the order, this miscellaneous second appeal was filed.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner/defendant submitted that the day on which the ex-parte decree was passed is one day prior to the marriage of the son of the petitioner and therefore he could not appear on that day for a valid reason, but the trial Court failed to appreciate the