The legal principle established is the importance of parties' presence in court proceedings, the need for 'sufficient cause' to set aside an ex parte decree, and the fair exercise of discretion by the trial court.

Alok Sharma, J.

This civil misc. appeal has been filed against the order dated 31.01.2003, whereby the learned Additional District and Session Judge No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur has dismissed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC read with Section 151 CPC filed by the defendant-appellant (hereinafter 'the defendant') against the ex parte judgment and decree dated 01.04.1997, passed by the trial court in a money suit of Rs. 43,028/- filed by the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter 'the plaintiff').

2. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 31.01.2003, passed by the trial court.

3. From the facts recorded in the impugned order, it is apparent that the defendant filed his written statement to the money suit of the plaintiff on 26.03.1992. Thereafter issues were framed on 02.12.1999 by the trial court. After framing of the issues, statement of the plaintiff as PW-1 was recorded. Thereafter, the defendant's evidence was recorded on 06.10.1993 and on the same date his evidence was closed. The matter was fixed for final hearing on 13.10.1993. Thereafter on 25.10.1993, 04.11.1993, 16.11.1993 and 04.12.1993 the matter was kept for final hearing. In the meanwhile an application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC was filed which was dismissed on 22.03.1994. Thereafter the plaintiff's counsel filed another application under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Order 13 Rule 2 CPC. The defendant sought time to file reply to the said application on eight occasions last of which was on 02.06.1995. On 02.06.1995 the matter was fixed for 27.05.1995. On 27.05.1995 the trial court ordered for ex-parte proceedings against the defendant because of his absence. The application under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC appears to have been allowed. Thereafter the trial court recorded the evidence of PW-2 Mahaveer Singh with reference to the document taken on record under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC. On 01.04.1997 the court below passed the ex-parte decree. In the passing of the decree, the trial court has considered the defence evidence already on record before the defendant and his counsel without good reason absented themselves.

4. From the facts obtaining, no sufficient cause within the scope of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was made out for the defendant and his counsel to be absent in the proceedings before the court below after the taking of defence evidence till the passing of the impugned judgment and decree dated 01.04.1997. Processes of the courts cannot be lightly and casually taken. And no litigant should be allowed to believe that the liberal approaches of courts can be misused. In a suit, there are two or more contesting parties, and the right of one cannot be compromised or casually negated as in setting aside an ex-parte decree without "sufficient cause" on the mere askance of a party.

5. In my considered opinion, the impugned order passed by the court below being a reasoned order evidencing the fair exercise of the discretion of the trial court calls for no interference by this Court.

6. I find no force in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Stay application is also dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.