The court emphasized the liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' for setting aside an ex parte decree and the need to balance the interests of both parties to prevent miscarriage of justice.

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner-plaintiff, by way of instant revision petition, has invoked the jurisdiction of High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the order dated 7.8.2007 passed in Civil Misc. Appeal No.44/2001 by the Court of Additional District Judge, Neem Ka Thana, Sikar whereby and whereunder application filed by respondents-defendants under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC has been allowed on payment of cost of Rs.7000/- and the ex parte judgment and decree dated 9.4.2001, passed in Civil Suit No.23/1992 (B.T. No.5/1993) titled as Prabhati Lal v. Smt. Suraji Devi, for specific performance and permanent injunction, has been set aside, and simultaneously the order dated 16.7.2001 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Neem Ka Thana, dismissing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC has been quashed.

2. Matter came up on an application for extension of stay order dated 5.9.2007, however, since revision petition was pending for hearing since about 15 years, with consent of counsel for both parties, final arguments on the revision petition itself have been heard on merits.

3. Before adverting to the issue involved in the instant revision petition, it is necessary to recapitulate the facts of present case, as culled out from the record, which are as under:

3.1 Petitioner-plaintiff (hereinafter referred as plaintiff) instituted civil suit for specific performance and permanent injunction on 28.2.1992, jointly against respondents-defendants (hereinafer referred as defendants) alleging inter-alia that plaintiff was adopted by one Shri Meena S/o Sayar and being his adopted son became Khatedaar of agricultural lands measuring 23 Bigha 19 Biswa situated in Village Meena Ki Nagal, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar. In the revenue record, mutation of their lands was sanctioned on 31.8.1977 in name of plaintiff but since at that point of time, some unwarranted litigations were started against plaintiff to grab his lands, therefore, plaintiff had to execute an ostensible sale deed dated 5.12.1977 in relation to his lands of Khasras No.674, 675, 511, 490, 428 and 177 measuring 1.78 hectare (7 Bigha 1 Biswa), in favour of defendant No.1 Smt. Suraji. Plaintiff alleged that this sale deed dated 5.12.1977 was a fictitious document and indeed neither possession was delivered nor any sale consideration was received. Later on defendant No.1 agreed to re-transfer and for re-entering the lands in question, in the name of plaintiff in the revenue record and for this purpose one agreement dated 26.3.1986 was executed in presence of family members and relatives, on assurance to make payment of Rs.28,000/- by the plaintiff. It is further stated that Rs.20,000/- was paid in cash to the persons who congregated at the time of execution of the agreement dated 26.3.1986, according to instructions of defendant No.1 and other family members and later on Rs.8000/- was paid to defendant No.1. It was averred that defendant No.1 was sister of plaintiff, and both were in cordial relations. But later on, when plaintiff came to know that defendant No.1 is going to breach the terms of agreement dated 26.3.1986 and is inclined to transfer the lands in question in favour of other persons, plaintiff had to institute the present civil suit on 28.2.1992. It appears that thereafter, defendant No.1 executed the registered sale deed dated 1.6.1992, therefore, plaintiff impleaded the subsequent purchasers as party defendants No.2 to 7 in the present suit.

3.2 Defendants put in appearance in the present suit before the trial Court and engaged advocate to appear and contest the suit on their behalf. It has been alleged by defendants that firstly, Advocate Shri Gajanand was engaged and later on after his death, Advocate Shri Gopal Lal was appointed to deal with the case. The trial Court granted time to defendants to file written statement, however, same was not submitted and advocate of defendants pleaded no instructions before the trial Court on 22