The main legal point established is that 'sufficient cause' for setting aside an ex-parte decree must demonstrate a reasonable defense and absence of negligence or inaction.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 22674/2023 (exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

FAO 110/2023 and CM APPL. 22673/2023 (Stay)

3. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 104 CPC, the appellant seeks setting aside of order dated 10.01.2023 passed by the learned ADJ-02, South West, Dwarka Courts, Delhi in MISC DJ ADJ 86/2020 dismissing its application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.

4. The necessary facts for disposal of the present appeal are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery alongwith the pendente lite and future interest etc.

5. In the plaint, it was claimed that the respondent was an ex- employee of the appellant company. He was appointed vide appointment letter/agreement dated 30.06.2015 and remained in service from 08.09.2015 to 06.09.2016 as Dy. General Manager at a salary of Rs.1,65,000/- per month. It was further claimed that his salary was revised to Rs. 1,74,733 w.e.f. 01.04.2016 vide increment letter dated 25.05.2016. Feeling aggrieved by the non-payment of the revised salary, the underlying suit came to be filed.

The appellant/defendant was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 28.11.2017 whereafter the ex-parte decree came to be passed on 06.04.2019. On being served with the demand notice, the appellant preferred the captioned application which came to be dismissed by the Trial Court vide the impugned order.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there was no clear proof of the appellant being served with the summons in the trial. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the same and passed the impugned order.

7. A perusal of the plaint would show that the same was filed mentioning the appellant's registered address in Delhi. In the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, the appellant admitted that the address provided in the memo of parties is its registered address. It was further admitted that in the first week of August, 2017, the summons issued by the Court were received by one Mr. Hari Nath, a Senior Executive in the appellant's Accounts Department. It was further stated that as the appellant was in the process of shifting its Accounts staff from registered office in Delhi to his new office at NOIDA, the notice received by Mr. Hari Nath was misplaced. It is only when an email was received on 02.02.2020, containing the demand notice for recovery of Rs.4,15,452/-, the appellant came to know about the passing of the impugned order whereafter the subject application was filed.

8. In the above factual matrix, the only issue that needs to be answered is that whether the appellant has been able to make out a case of "sufficient cause" for its non-appearance before the Trail Court, as required in terms of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.

9. At this juncture, this Court may profitably refer to its decision in H.P. Singh (Harvinder Pal Singh) v. Sh. Jasbir Singh & Ors., FAO 64/2022 rendered on 10.03.2023. Relevant extracts of the said judgment read as follows:

"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 Co