$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO 284/2019 & CM APPL. 31968/2019, CM APPL. 34148/2019 CM APPL. 6136/2023, CM APPL. 6137/2023 M/S ORISSA TRANSPORT SERVICES PVT LTD.....Appellant Through: Mr. Praveen Suri versus M/S I B P COMPANY LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Ms. Paramjit Beniwal and Mr.

Shaurya Dahiya, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

O R D E R

% 19.01.2026

1. By way of present appeal, the appellant seeks to assail the order dated 13.03.2019, whereby the appellant‟s application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter “CPC”) came to be dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was regularly appearing before the Trial Court and that the case was at the stage of the recording of additional evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. The matter was listed for consideration of an application seeking summoning additional evidence. He submits, while referring to the order sheets placed on record, that the appellant had not appeared only on one day, after which he was proceeded ex parte. He submits that thereafter, the suit came to be decreed on 03.07.2014. The appellant became aware of the ex parte judgment only on 02.02.2016 when he received a legal notice issued by the plaintiff asking for the payment under the decree. The present application filed under Order IX Rule 13 on 08.03.2016 came to be dismissed vide the impugned order.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant has provided sufficient cause for his non-appearance on 04.07.2013. He further submits that he had inadvertently mixed up the file of the present case with another case on account of which he could not appear on the said date as well as on the subsequent dates.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has opposed the aforesaid plea by contending that not only the counsel but also the appellant was negligent in not keeping track of the proceedings.

5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused through the impugned order as well as the material placed on record. The appellant has premised his explanation of non-appearance on account of noting the wrong date in the diary. Alongwith his application, the diary of the learned counsel was also placed on record.

6. The legal position governing applications under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is well settled. This Court, in Hira Sweets & Confectionary Pvt. Ltd. v.

Hira Confectioners, (2021) 2 HCC (Del) 134 held:

“11. Insofar as the scope of an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is concerned, the Court has to see whether the summons in the suit were duly served or not and/or whether the defendant was prevented by any “sufficient cause” from appearing when the suit was called for hearing. In the present case, the defendant was duly served with the summons in the suit and had appeared.

12. “Sufficient Cause” is an elastic expression and no hard and fast guidelines are prescribed. The Court, in its discretion, has to consider the “sufficient cause” in the facts and circumstances of every individual case. Although in interpreting the words “sufficient cause”, the Court has wide discretion but the same has to be exercised in the particular facts of the case.”

7. In the case of Parimal v. Veena, (2011) 3 SCC 545, where the expression “sufficient cause” was interpreted as under:

“13. “Sufficient cause” is an expression which has been used in a large number of statutes. The meaning of the word “sufficient” is “adequate” or “enough”, inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, word “sufficient” embraces no more than that which provides a platitude which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case and duly examined from the viewpoint of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, “sufficient cause” means that the party had not acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on