The judgment emphasizes the need for 'sufficient cause' for non-appearance and the liberal construction of this provision to ensure complete justice between the parties.

B.S. Verma, J.

1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 15-9-1995 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition) passed by the District Judge, Dehradun, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 676 of 1985, whereby the appeal of the respondent no. 2 was allowed and the application moved under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. by the defendant-respondent no.2 herein was allowed.

2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the plaintiff-petitioner Rameshwar Prasad filed a suit bearing Original Suit No. 134 of 1981 in the court of Civil Judge Dehradun for recovery of amount of Rs. 46,431/- along with interest @ 20% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of payment and in default for the sale of the property detailed in para 7A the plaint which was mortgaged at the time of taking loan of Rs. 27,000/-. In the plaint, the defendant was mentioned to be resident of Civil Lines, Jullundur City in the State of Punjab. It appears that when the defendant-respondent no.2 was not served by ordinary process of court, substituted service through publication in the newspaper was ordered. When the defendant did not turn up to put in appearance in the suit, the suit was ordered to proceed ex parte and, ultimately, the suit was decreed ex parte by judgment and decree dated 25-2-1982.

3. The defendant-respondent no.2 herein later-on moved an application (paper no. 3C2) on 27-10-1983, which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 223 of 1983 before the trial Court under Order 9, Rule 13 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 25-2-1982, alleging therein that the defendant-applicant had no knowledge about the proceedings in the suit and he came to know of the decree passed ex parte in the suit only on 10-11-1983 and that too, when he received a notice from Mr. N.N. Goel, Counsel for the plaintiff. It was also alleged that the defendant was not in Jullandhar from 24-12-1981 to 15-1-1982, rather he was in Delhi, therefore, he had no knowledge of the publication of summons in the newspaper “Punjab Kesari” which is not in circulation in Delhi. It was also prayed that delay, if any, be condoned.

4. Plaintiff-petitioner filed objection against the said application by filing his counter affidavit (paper no. 29C2) stating therein that the defendant was having knowledge of the suit proceedings and the defendant came to know of the ex parte decree also as he wrote a letter on 29-3-1982 giving particulars of the suit and the fate of the suit to one Ramesh Chand Nautiyal @ Ramu, whose father is said to be looking after the property of the defendant at Mussoorie. Plaintiff-decree holder claimed that said Ramesh Chand Nautiyal came to him along with the original letter written by the defendant and that the plaintiff retained a photocopy of the same retained with him and returned the letter to him. It was also asserted that the plaintiff told him about the decretal amount; that on 27-6-1983, defendant-judgment debtor came to the plaintiff-decree holder at Mussoorie and promised to pay the decretal amount; that on 13-8-1983, the decree holder sent a reminder to the defendant on 6-9-1983 but no amount was paid; that thereafter the decree holder pressed the decree in execution; that the property of the judgment debtor was purchased by the decree holder himself, who had spent a sum of Rs. 12,000/- over stamps etc. The decree holder also filed photocopy of paper no. 32B in Misc. Case No. 223 of 1983 before the trial Court, which purported to be letter dated 29-3-1982 referred to above.

5. In reply, the applicant-defendant filed affidavit of Ramesh Chand Nautiyal @ Ramu, who controverted the allegations contained in the affidavit of the plaintiff-decree holder and further denied having taken any letter like 32B to the decree holder and also denied that he had received any such letter from the defendant-judgment deb