The main legal point established is the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, emphasizing that it must demonstrate the absence of negligence or lack of bona fide on the part of the party.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. By way of present appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(d) & Section 104 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, the appellant has assailed the order dated 23.03.2019 passed by the Trial Court, whereby its application filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing in the matter. In the underlying application, the appellant has explained that after being served with the summons in the suit, it duly appeared through counsel and even filed the written statement albeit, belatedly. The appellant's counsel after initial appearance stopped appearing without any intimation to the appellant. These facts came to the knowledge of the appellant on 03.07.2018, when it was served with the summons in the execution petition.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the explanation provided in the application is vague and insufficient. Further, the averments made in the application itself are incorrect inasmuch as the appellant was continued to be represented even after the aforesaid counsel had left the appellant-organization, and thus the ground taken in the application is fallacious.

4. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the material placed on record.

5. Before proceeding further, reference in connection with the scope of present appeal is made to decision of this Court in H.P. Singh (Harvinder Pal Singh) v. Sh. Jasbir Singh & Ors., FAO 64/2022 rendered on 10.03.2023. The relevant excerpt reads as under:

"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 may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, word "sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platitude which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case and duly examined from the viewpoint of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause" means that the party had not acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or the party cannot be alleged to have been "not acting diligently" or "remaining inactive". However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judicious