The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of interpreting the doctrine of 'sufficient cause' in a liberal and pragmatic manner, emphasizing the need for substantial justice and the practical application of the law to serve the ends of justice.

1. Defendant seeks to revise an order allowing an application filed by the plaintiff under 0.9 R.9, Code of Civil Procedure.

2. There are two plaintiffs, wife and husband. The suit was posted for trial in the special list on 16-1-1985. As early as 5-1-1985 an application was filed for examination of the first plaintiff on commission alleging that she is laid up. A medical certificate was also produced. From 16-1-1985 the case was adjourned to 29-1-1985. On 25-1-1985 the application to examine the first plaintiff on commission was dismissed. On 29-1-1985 the suit was also dismissed for the reason that the plaintiffs did not appear.

3. The application to set aside the dismissal was filed within time. The ground alleged was illness of the first plaintiff and consequent inability to appear. The Doctor who treated the first plaintiff was examined as pw. 2 and the medical certificate was also produced and proved. Second plaintiff gave evidence as pw.

1 and another witness was examined as pw. 3. Defendant gave evidence as dw.1. Medical certificate is Ext. Al.

4. Trial court did not discuss the evidence to any extent except saying that the oral evidence of pws.1 and 2 is contradictory on many points and even assuming that first plaintiff was ill, second plaintiff could have come to court. Also for the further reason that first plaintiff was not examined, the court held that the reason cannot be accepted as true. However, "considering the ardent and acute nature of the claims and allegations" the court thought that it is only fair and proper that an opportunity to have the case decided on the merits should be allowed on terms. Whatever may be the words used and whatever may be its reactions on the evidence, the ultimate result is that the court considered this to be a fit case to set aside the dismissal on terms. The question is whether this Court will be justified in revision in interfering with that judicial discretion inspite of the unsatisfactory manner in which the order is reasoned and worded.

5. It is true that at the stage of considering applications like these under 0.9 R.9 or 0.9 R.13 or S.5 of the Limitation Act, merits of the claims and objections may not be very relevant materials that could influence the judicial mind. But when the object and purpose of the existence of courts and those for which parties are approaching legal institutions are taken into account, such considerations cannot be said to be totally irrelevant in all cases. Sometimes such considerations also may have to weigh with the court in giving the judicial verdict whether there was 'sufficient cause' as envisaged in 0.9 R.9. That may sometimes help the court even in the absence of clinching evidence regarding 'sufficient cause' to come' to a practical conclusion which subserves the ends of justice better. Ordinarily a litigant who approaches the court with a genuine and substantial claim or contention and who knows that he is likely to suffer heavily by his absence, may not purposely evade court merely with a view to try his chance by a petition under 0.9 R.9 or R.13. There may be cases where though the absence was not wilful or due to reasons beyond control, the party may not be able to offer an explanation which is fully convincing to the court or prove the same satisfactorily. In such circumstances, there is a wide discretion with the court in deciding what 'sufficient cause' is for the purpose of allowing or rejecting the prayer. 'Sufficient cause' is an elastic expression for which no hard and fast guidelines could be given. The decision on the question must be the cumulative effect of various factors depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The nature of the claims or contentions and the effect which the decision of the case is having on the rights of parties cannot be ruled out as absolutely foreign to the area of consideration under any circumstances. In appropriate cases if such considerations also weighed with the court,