The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, emphasizing that it is an elastic expression to be determined based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Order 43 Rule (1)(D) CPC assailing order dated 08.11.2021 passed by learned ADJ-02, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in CS No. 6579/2016, whereby his application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC seeking setting aside of order/decree dated 31.10.2017 was dismissed.

2. The facts of the case are that the original plaintiffs (respondent Nos.1 and 2) had filed a suit seeking inter-alia partition of property bearing No.JF-1/49, First Floor, Gupta Colony, Khirki Extension, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-17 (hereinafter, the `suit property'). Vide order dated 24.08.2011, the appellant was proceeded against in the suit ex-parte and the final decree came to be passed by the Trial Court on 31.10.2017, wherein it was held that since the suit property is indivisible by metes and bounds, the same should be sold by means of auction.

The appellant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC on the ground that he could not appear in the suit as he was never served the summons. It was claimed that he came to know about the decree only when summons of the execution petition were received by him. The appellant's application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 08.11.2021. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his application, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that while passing the impugned order, the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the appellant came to know about passing of the decree only on 05.08.2019, when he received summons in the execution petition filed by the respondent(s). It has further been submitted that after becoming aware of the passing of the decree, the appellant immediately took steps and filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside of the same.

4. The appeal is vehemently resisted by learned counsel for respondent(s), who has supported the impugned order.

5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the digitized records of the Trial Court.

6. A perusal of the records reveals that respondent Nos.1 and 2 had preferred a Civil Suit No. 233/2016 (old number) and 206579/2016 (new number) seeking partition of the suit property on the basis of a Will dated 16.11.2000 executed by Late Sh. Gyan Singh. Besides other ancillary reliefs, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had sought possession to the extent of 2/3rd share, with 1/3rd share going to the present appellant.

7. The short question which arises for consideration before this Court is whether the appellant has been able to make out a case of "sufficient cause" for non-appearance, as required in terms of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.

8. Insofar as the scope of an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is concerned, it is now well-settled that the Court has to see whether the summons in the suit were duly served or not and/or whether the defendant was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from appearing when the suit was called for hearing.

9. "Sufficient cause" is an elastic expression and no hard and fast guidelines are prescribed to define it. Although the Court has wide discretion in interpreting the words "sufficient cause", the same has to be exercised according to the particular facts and circumstances of the case.

10. At this stage, reference may profitably be made to Sudarshan Sareen v. National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. and Anr. reported as 2013 SCC OnLine Del 4412, where a Division Bench of this Court held the appellant therein to have been willfully negligent in not appearing and rejected his prayer for setting aside dismissal of his application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The Court relied on a passage from Parimal v. Veena alias Bharti reported as (2011) 3 SCC 545, where the expression "sufficient cause" was interpreted as under:

"13. "Sufficient cause" is an expression which has been used in a large number of statutes. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as