The concept of 'sufficient cause' under Order IX Rule 13 CPC must be judged objectively, and the party seeking to set aside an ex-parte decree must provide a reasonable cause for their non-appearance.

JUDGMENT :

Prasenjit Biswas, J.

1. In this revision petition, the assail is to the order dated September 30, 2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, II, Sealdah in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 108 of 2000 by which the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Sealdah dated August 22, 2000 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 48 of 1999 is affirmed.

2. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the First Appellate Court, the present petitioners have filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. Filtering the unnecessary details, the facts which are requisite to be frescoed for the purpose of disposal of the present revision petitions are that-the opposite parties filed a Title Suit Being No. 312 of 1986 against the present petitioners before the Trial Court with a prayer for getting a decree for declaration that they are entitled to 63/200 shares in respect of the case property and for partition of the suit property by metes and bounds according to their shares. After getting summon the petitioner no. 2 entered appearance in that suit and filed written statement denying the averments as made out in the plaint. The said suit was heard ex-parte and a preliminary decree for partition was passed on September 7, 1998. The petitioners after coming to note of the said decree filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC in the Trial Court which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 48 of 1999 interalia praying for setting aside the said ex-parte decree of partition.

4. It is the contention of the petitioners that the suit property is a thika tenanted property and the superior land lord of the property filed a Title Suit being No. 546 of 1957 which was subsequently renumbered as Title Suit No. 83 of 1992 praying for establishment of title and khas possession in respect of the suit property involved in the suit filed by the present opposite parties. In the Title Suit filed by the superior land lord both the parties of the present suit appeared but only the present petitioners contested the same and the said suit was finally decreed in favour of the said superior land lord. Against the said judgment and decree the present petitioners preferred an appeal being no. T.A. 53 of 2002 which is still pending before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Sealdah.

5. It is the specific stand point of the present petitioners that a talk was held between the plaintiff nos. 1 and 7 and these present petitioners that the suit filed by the opposite parties being no. 312 of 1986 will not be continued until finalization of the Title Appeal Being No. 53 of 2002 sometimes in the month of April 1995. It is stated by the petitioners that due to talk of compromise between the parties of the above-mentioned partition suit they did not take any step with hope that the said compromise would be affected very soon. Relying on such talk of compromise the present petitioners did not contest the partition suit and by taking advantage of such situation the opposite parties got ex-parte decree on 14.09.1998 and they were totally in dark about the ex-parte decree passed by the Trial Court. The present petitioners firstly came to know about the ex-parte preliminary decree on 02.06.1998 and as such they filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC with a prayer for setting aside the ex parte decree against them.

6. It appears that in earlier round of litigation the present petitioners as appellants preferred a similar appeal being no. 108 of 2000 before the S.C.C Court, Sealhah and the learned Court allowed the said Miscellaneous Appeal on contest directing the learned Trial Court to examine the impugned Misc. Case in the real perspective as the allegations of material irregularity in the service of summon in connection with original suit and pass a fresh order. Against the said order the present opposite parties/plaintiffs preferred a revision before this Cou