4. The present revision pe(cid:15)(cid:15)on assails the aforesaid concurrent orders.

5. Learned counsel for the pe(cid:15)(cid:15)oner contends that although the pe(cid:15)(cid:15)oner had been appearing in the suit proceedings, a compromise was effected before a Panchayat on 27.01.2023. It is submi&ed that the pe(cid:15)(cid:15)oner was under a bona fide impression that the suit would be withdrawn pursuant to the said compromise and, therefore, he did not con(cid:15)nue to a&end the proceedings. On this premise, it is urged that sufficient cause stood established for his non-appearance and the ex parte decree deserves to be set aside so that the ma&er may be adjudicated on merits.

6. An applica(cid:15)on under Order IX Rule 13 CPC can succeed only if the defendant establishes either that summons were not duly served; or that he was prevented by “sufficient cause” from appearing when the suit was called for hearing. The burden squarely lies upon the applicant to demonstrate that his absence was neither inten(cid:15)onal nor a&ributable to negligence. Mere asser(cid:15)on of a misunderstanding or assump(cid:15)on, unsupported by cogent material, does not cons(cid:15)tute sufficient cause. Courts are required to balance two compe(cid:15)ng considera(cid:15)ons i.e., finality of judicial proceedings and opportunity of hearing but the discre(cid:15)on is to be exercised on sound judicial principles.

7. The Appellate Court, while affirming the dismissal of the applica(cid:15)on, recorded that issues had already been framed and the plain(cid:15)ff had concluded his evidence. The defendant had availed three opportuni(cid:15)es to lead evidence. On 23.08.2023, when the ma&er was fixed for defendant’s evidence, he failed to appear and was rightly proceeded ex parte. The alleged compromise dated 27.01.2023 was not substan(cid:15)ated by any document bearing signatures of the par(cid:15)es. The wri(cid:15)ng relied upon was merely a note issued by the Sarpanch regarding holding of a Panchayat and was not signed by either party.

8. A perusal of the zimni orders further reveals that the pe(cid:15)(cid:15)oner con(cid:15)nued to appear through counsel even a;er 27.01.2023 namely on 26.04.2023, 19.05.2023 and 27.07.2023. On 27.07.2023, the case was adjourned specifically for defendant’s evidence to 23.08.2023. It was only on that date that none appeared on his behalf.

9. Thus, even assuming arguendo that a compromise discussion had taken place on 27.01.2023, the pe(cid:15)(cid:15)oner’s con(cid:15)nued par(cid:15)cipa(cid:15)on in proceedings therea;er belies the plea that he was under the impression that the suit would be withdrawn. His conduct does not reflect bona fide misunderstanding but rather a conscious default at the stage of leading evidence.

10. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that no sufficient cause was made out. The findings are based on apprecia(cid:15)on of documentary record and procedural chronology.

11. In revisional jurisdic(cid:15)on, this Court does not sit as a Court of appeal to re-appreciate evidence unless the findings suffer from patent illegality, material irregularity, or perversity. No such infirmity is demonstrated.

12. The absence of the pe(cid:15)(cid:15)oner appears deliberate and unexplained. The essen(cid:15)al requirement of “sufficient cause” under Order IX Rule 13 CPC having not been sa(cid:15)sfied, the Courts below commi&ed no jurisdic(cid:15)onal error in dismissing the applica(cid:15)on.

13. Accordingly, no ground is made out for interference. The revision pe(cid:15)(cid:15)on, insofar as it challenges the dismissal of the applica(cid:15)on under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, is liable to be dismissed.

14. Faced with this situa(cid:15)on, learned counsel for the pe(cid:15)(cid:15)oner has prayed for grant of six weeks’ (cid:15)me to deposit the decretal amount so as to save the a&ached property from sale. It is submi&ed that as per the warrants of sale (Annexure P-11), the a&ached property is scheduled