A party seeking to set aside an ex-parte decree must demonstrate sufficient cause for absence, avoiding negligence and ensuring timely notification to the court.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. By virtue of the present appeal, Appellant-original Defendant before learned trial court, has impugned the judgement dated 16.12.2021 (hereinafter referred as the "impugned judgment") passed by learned trial court dismissing its application under Order IX Rule 13 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as the "Code") for setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree dated 22.02.2020 (hereinafter referred as the "ex-parte decree").

2. In the present appeal the sole issue for adjudication before us is "Whether the appellant was able to show that it was prevented by sufficient cause from not appearing before the learned trial court?" For this, we have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for appellant based on the material on record before us coupled with the conduct of appellant before the learned trial court.

3. Respondent-original Plaintiff before learned trial court instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.43,08,000/- under Order XVII of Code against appellant on 14.07.2007. Upon service, appellant entered appearance on 12.12.2017. Finding appearance of appellant not proper, vide judgment dated 18.01.2018 learned trial court decreed the said suit in favour of the respondent. Challenge thereto by appellant (RFA NO. 354/2018 titled as M/s. Synergy Tech Automation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. SMC Pneumatic India Pvt. Ltd.) was allowed by this court vide order dated 04.07.2018 thereby remanding back the suit to be treated as an ordinary suit and directing the parties to appear before District & Sessions Judge, Delhi on 08.08.2018. Accordingly, appellant appeared on 08.08.2018 and again on 20.08.2018 before the designated court, but the latter appearance was recorded by Reader as learned Judge was on leave. Thereafter, appellant failed to appear since 25.02.2019 till the passing of ex-parte decree dated 22.02.2020.

4. On coming to know of the ex-parte decree, the appellant filed applications under Order IX Rule 13 of Code and under Section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the "Section 5 application") seeking condonation of delay. Upon service, the learned counsel for respondent appeared and chose to argue and oppose both applications without filing replies thereto. Learned trial court heard both applications together and after hearing both parties, for reasons stated in the impugned order, first allowed the Section 5 application and then proceeded to hear the application under Order IX Rule 13 of Code.

5. In application under Order IX Rule 13 of Code appellant sought condonation of 61 days contending that such delay occurred because of lack of knowledge of ex-parte decree by pleading that it became aware of the ex-parte decree through Sunderlal Sawji Urban Co-op Bank Limited in December 2020 as everything in Maharashtra was closed till end of October 2020 due to COVID-19; it was going through a financial crunch; it was unable to depute anyone to visit Delhi to meet its Counsel; and lastly its counsel drafted the application in February 2021.

6. Vide impugned judgment dated 16.12.2021, the learned trial court dismissed aforesaid application under Order IX Rule 13 of Code with cost of Rs.20,000/- agreeing with contentions of learned counsel for respondent to the effect that the appellant, despite gaining knowledge in December 2020 appellant contacted its counsel only in January 2021; and despite application under Order IX Rule 13 of Code being ready on 02.02.2021 it was filed only on 02.03.2021 and accordingly holding that appellant failed to explain as to how it received information/knowledge of decree; appellant failed to explain the delay of two months for its counsel to prepare and