SHREE ELECTRONICS Vs. BPL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are filed challenging the order of dismissal of Misc.Petition Nos.25111/2011 and 25112/2011 on the file of the learned 26th Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.

(2.) Heard Sri. Vivek Raj Singh, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri. A.M.Vijay, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. H.U.Vachan, learned counsel for the respondent in both the appeals.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently contend that the trial Court in both the miscellaneous petitions, though one of the medical record is marked in one case but could not marked the same in another case, comes to an erroneous conclusion that the absence has not been specifically proved and no sufficient cause is shown. Learned Senior Counsel in support of his argument, relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.P. SRIVASTAVA vs. R.K. RAIZADA AND OTHERS reported in (2000) 3 SCC 54 and contend that in Paragraph No.7 of the judgment, the Apex Court has observed that under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC, an ex parte decree passed against a defendant can be set aside upon satisfaction of the Court that either the summons were not duly served upon the defendant or he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing. Unless "sufficient cause" is shown for non-appearance of the defendant in the case on the date of hearing, the Court has no power to set aside an ex parte decree. No doubt, Apex Court has observed in the judgment that if sufficient cause is shown, the Court can set aside the order by invoking Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC.