An ex parte decree may be set aside where the defendant demonstrates sufficient cause for non-appearance, such as defective service of summons. Procedural law should be interpreted liberally to ensure justice is served, ensuring that parties are not deprived of a hearing on merits due to technical errors.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant civil revision application is directed against the order dated 12.10.2023 passed by learned Principal District Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 14 of 2022, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the respondent nos. 1 & 2 under Order XLIII Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 22.09.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-I, Jamshedpur in Civil Misc. Case No. 02 of 2015, which was filed under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 30.07.2012 passed in Title Suit No. 88 of 2004, was allowed by setting aside the ex-parte decree passed in Title Suit No. 88 of 2004 and restored the suit to its original number for hearing on merits,.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners assailing the impugned order has mainly argued that the learned appellate court in an appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, while setting aside the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-I, Jamshedpur, on application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has ignored the conditions laid down under Order IX Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex-parte decree and acted beyond jurisdiction while allowing the Misc. Appeal only on the ground of securing trial on merits for the sake of principles of natural justice. Learned appellate court has palpably failed to consider that there was effective service of notices / summons in the Title Suit No. 88 of 2004 upon respondent no. 2 namely, Executive Engineer, Subarnrekha Canal Division, Sankosai, Mango, Jamshedpur.

3. It is further submitted that the suit was contested by respondent no. 1, The State of Jharkhand, but no written statement was filed, although relief was sought specifically against the respondent no. 2, therefore, ex-parte decree has rightly been passed and the Misc. Petition filed by the defendant / respondent no.2 was also dismissed on merits after taking evidence by the learned trial court. Therefore, the learned appellate court had no occasion and valid reasons to quash the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-I, Jamshedpur.

4. It is further submitted that notices were served upon the appellants / defendants properly and thereafter the ex-parte decree was passed. Therefore, impugned order passed by learned appellate court, is fit to be set aside, allowing this revision.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the reported judgment in the case of Parimal Vs. Veena @ Bharti , (2011) 3 SCC 545, wherein it has been held that second proviso appended to Order IX Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure is mandatory in nature as such, it is not permissible for the court to allow the application in utter disregard of terms and conditions incorporated therein.

6. It was observed that for determining the sufficient cause test to be applied as to whether defendant honestly and sincerely intended to remain present when the suit was called on for hearing and did his best to do so. Sufficient cause is thus the cause for which the defendant could not be blamed for his absence. In this contest, “sufficient cause” means that the party had not acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bonafide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or the party cannot be alleged to have been “not acting diligently” or “remaining inactive”, 7. Learned counsel has further relied up