IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that 'sufficient cause' for non-appearance must be interpreted liberally, allowing for restoration of applications even after previous dismissals.

JUDGMENT :

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

Heard Sri Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Virupaksha Dattatreya Gouda, learned counsel representing Sri Vivekananda Virupaksha, learned counsel for respondent No.8.

2. This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC has been filed by the appellant who is the applicant in E.A.Nos. 932 of 2023 and E.A.No.290 of 2019 filed under Order 21 Rule 58 of CPC in E.P.No.52 of 2007 in M.C.No.185 of 2001. By means of this appeal, the appellant challenges the rejection of her application E.A.No.932 of 2023 under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC by an order dated 11.09.2023.

3. The respondent No.1- M/s. Karnataka State Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd., is the Decree Holder (D.Hr.) in MC.No.185 of 2001. Respondent Nos.2 to 7 are the Judgment Debtors (J.Drs.). In E.P.No.52 of 2007 for execution of decree by respondent No.1, the property was attached. The appellant filed the application i.e., E.A.No.290 of 2019 under Order 21 Rule 58, claiming the property. The said application was dismissed in non-prosecution on 04.07.2023 and for setting aside that order, E.A.No.932 of 2023 was filed under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC which has been rejected on 11.09.2023.

4. The respondent No.8 is the auction purchaser in the auction by Execution Court which vide order dated 17.11.2023 confirmed the sale.

5. In the present appeal by interim order dated 22.11.2023, while admitting the appeal, the further proceedings of the EP were stayed for a specific period, which interim order was extended from time to time.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had shown the sufficient cause for her non appearance on 04.07.2023. The execution Court committed illegality in rejecting the application. He submits that under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC, if there was sufficient cause for the non appearance when the suit was called on for hearing i.e., on the particular date, the application should have been allowed. But, the Execution Court considering the previous dates/events has rejected the application and in that light, it considered the cause shown as not sufficient. He places reliance in the case of G.P.Srivastava v. R.K.Raizada, (2000) 3 SCC 54.

7. Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submits that previously also the applicant‘s application was rejected. He submits that the cause shown was not sufficient and no illegality has been committed by the Execution Court in passing the order impugned.

8. Sri Virupaksha Dattatreya Gouda, learned counsel representing Sri Vivekananda Virupaksha, learned counsel for respondent No.8 submits that there are no bonafides in filing the application. The cause shown is not sufficient. He submits that previously also applications under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC were filed by the other persons claiming to have purchased the same property from the same appellant which were also rejected for want of prosecution. He places reliance in Longjam Bijoy Singh v. Keisham Irabot Singh, CRP(C.R.P Art 227) No.40 of 2014 Dated 04.02.2022 High Court of Manipur at Imphal, to contend that there should be bonafides and sufficient cause to allow the application.

9. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

10. In view of the submissions advanced, the following point arises for our consideration:

“Whether the rejection of the appellant‘s application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC is justified ?”

11. The facts are not in dispute. The appellant filed the petition under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC to raise the attachment order. Notice was issued to the respondents in the petition. They filed counter. The matter was adjourned from time to time i.e., from 27.09.2019 to 13.12.2019 on the ground that the petitioner was not ready. The petitioner filed chief affidavit on 31.12.2019. The matter was adjourned from time to time till 24.03.2020. She did not appear and did not fil