The distinction between 'good cause' and 'sufficient cause' under Order 9, Rule 7 and Rule 13 is crucial in setting aside an ex parte decree.

Padhye, J—This is a revision by the defendant (applicant) from an appellate order upholding the order of the 1st Court refusing to set aside an ex parte decree passed against him on 26-10-1944 in Civil Suit No. 265 of 1944. The relevant facts are these:

2. The first hearing of Civil Suit No. 265 of 1944 was on 11-9-1944 and the summons was served on the defendant (applicant) on 21-5-1944. The defendant was absent at the hearing and the Court deciding to proceed ex parte against him fixed the case for ex parte evidence on 26-10-1944.

3. On 18-9-1944 the defendant was granted a certificate by the doctor under whose treatment he then was that the defendant was suffering for the last two months from bleeding piles and being very anaemic on that account was unable to move about. The defendant resides in the interior of the tahsil some miles away from Daryapur.

4. On 22-9-1944 he applied to the Court for setting aside the ex parte order passed against him and produced the doctor's certificate in support of the application. The application was rejected summarily the same day and the order of rejection runs as follows:

....Application is not supported by affidavit. It does not disclose reason sufficient to set aside ex parte order. Defendant was served in last May and with little diligence he could have obtained adjournment. Application is summarily rejected with costs.

5. On 26-10-1944, ex parte evidence of the plaintiff was recorded in the absence of the defendant and ex parte decree was passed. The plaintiff had summoned three witnesses for the hearing but he examined none but himself and closed his case.

6. On 7th November 1944 the defendant filed his application to set aside the ex parte decree passed against him supported by an affidavit and the doctor's certificate (the same which was produced before). This application was opposed by the plaintiff (non-applicant). It was dismissed on 20th January 1945 summarily and the operative part of the order runs as under:

On 22nd September 1944 an application to set aside the ex parte proceedings had been filed. The case came up for final disposal on 26th October 1944. No appearance was put on 26th October 1944 and claim was decreed after ex parte evidence. The application to set aside the decree is within time. The same is opposed by Mr. Vaidya.

I am not satisfied that defendant exercised vigilance expected of him. He allowed the case to proceed ex parte pugnaciously. The application is dismissed as there is lack of bona fides.

7. This order was upheld in appeal and the operative part of the appellate order runs thus:

The summons was duly served on the defendant appellant on 21st May 1944. The second ground was urged, in the previous application dated 22nd September 1941 and was rejected. He has not appealed against 4hat order and so he cannot now say that that order is wrong. His remedy thus in this case is barred by way of application. He could appeal against the ex parte decree not the order. The previous application for absence of appearance was not supported by any affidavit for the Court to act upon. Under the added proviso to Rule 13 by our High Court, the Court should not set aside the ex parte decree if the defendant had sufficient time after service to come and put in his defence. The defendant was served on 21st May 1944 and had 4 months time to come and put in his defence. He could instruct his pleader through some one else as he did for the application dated 22nd September 1944. The lower Court was thus justified in coming to the conclusion that the defendant was guilty of negligence and allowed the ex parte order to be passed deliberately.

8. The plaintiff (non-applicant) is the holder of survey No. 30/1 area 11.35 acres and the defendant is the holder of survey No. 30/2 area 4.22 acres. The plaintiff's case was that in June 1943 the defendant had taken wrongful possession of 14 gunthas with trees out of his field No. 30/1 and that he should be restored to the possession of th