The main legal point established was the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' for non-appearance under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, emphasizing that previous negligence should not be penalized if sufficient cause is shown for non-appearance on the relevant date.

1. The respondent in the above C.R.P.No.2907 of 2009 has filed O.S.No.293 of 2001 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Namakkal, against the petitioner herein seeking a decree for specific performance on the basis of an agreement of sale, dated 11. 2000 said to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent herein.

2. The suit was dismissed for default on 112. 2005. The respondent herein filed I.A.No.522 of 2006 to set aside the order, dated 112. 2005 and restore the suit to file.

3. The petition was opposed by the petitioner herein.

4. Ona consideration of rival contentions, the trial court dismissed the petition.

5. Being aggrieved by that the respondent herein filed C.M.A.No.11 of 2007 before the Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Namakkal. The lower appellate court allowed the appeal and being aggrieved by that the petitioner is before this Court.

6. Heard both.

7. The learnedcounsel for the petitioner in C.R.P.No.2907 of 2009 submitted that the lower appellate court has failed to consider that the respondent herein, who was a tenant in the suit property belonging to the revision petitioner entered into an agreement to purchase the property on 11. 2000; stopped paying rent; did not come forward to get the sale deed executed in his favour even though the revision petitioner is ready to execute the sale deed; he filed a suit for specific performance as if the revision petitioner was not ready to perform her part of the contract.

8. The learned counsel submitted that the learned counsel for the respondent reported no instructions and hence, the suit was dismissed for default with costs on 1. 2005; thereafter, the respondent filed I.A.No.725 of 2005 for restoration of the suit and the same was allowed and the suit was restored; the suit was posted for trial on 12. 2005; the plaintiffs counsel reported no instructions once again; the plaintiff, who was present in the court, prayed for an adjournment to engage a different counsel; hence, the trial was adjourned to 112. 2005 as a last chance; on 112. 2005, the plaintiff pleaded that he is not ready and represented that a counsel is coming from Madras; the defendant/petitioner, who was present in the court, stated that she is ready to execute the sale deed and thus the defendant submitted to a decree; but the plaintiff stated that the amendments are to be taken and that he is not ready to take the sale deed as such; the trial was once again adjourned to 112. 2005 as a last chance; on 112. 2005, there was no representation for the plaintiff; he was called absent; and the suit was dismissed for default with costs; and thereafter, the respondent filed I.A.No.522 of 2006 on 1. 2006 for restoration of the suit; the reasons stated by the respondent in the affidavit that he was not sanctioned leave by his superiors; and hence, he was not able to come to the Court on 112. 2005.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the aforesaid facts have been meticulously considered by the trial court and valid reasons have been recorded for dismissing the restoration petition. But according to the learned counsel the lower appellate court has not considered the aforesaid dilatory tactics adopted by the respondent but by observing that in the interest of justice an opportunity should be given to the respondent to prove his case on merits and restored the suit to file. The learned counsel submitted that the respondent is squatting upon the suit property right from 2000 without paying any rent and there is absolutely no justifiable cause for the absence of the respondent on 112. 2005 before the trial court.

.10. Countering the said submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent has shown sufficient cause for his non appearance on 112. 2005 and the respondent has produced necessary document to show that his application seeking leave was rejected and he had to attend the official work on 112. 200