SIMPLEX PROJECTS LIMITED Vs. JAI BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Order 43 Rule 1 (d) CPC against the order dated 21.9.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in C.S. No.420/2010 dismissing the application of the defendant/appellant herein under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on the ground that the appellant was not able to show 'sufficient cause' for setting the ex parte judgment and decree dated 8.2.2012.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the defendant/appellant who has vehemently contended that the learned trial court has fallen into an error by not allowing the application of the appellant for setting aside the ex parte decree as he was able to show 'sufficient cause'. The learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon two judgments of the Apex Court passed in case titled Tea Auction Ltd. vs. Grace Hill Tea Industry & Another, 2006 12 SCC 104 and G.P. Srivastava vs. R.K. Raizada & Others, 2000 3 SCC 54.

(3.) So far as the learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent herein is concerned, he has contested the submissions made by the learned counsel for the defendant/appellant and contended that the appellant has not only tried to delay the disposal of the suit by not only absenting but has also failed to show 'sufficient cause' for its non-appearance despite service. It has also been stated that after the ex parte decree was passed on 8.2.2012, the plaintiff/respondent had served a caveat on 19.3.2012 to the defendant/appellant and despite this, the appellant did not take steps to participate in the proceedings and had belatedly filed an application for setting aside ex parte decree by contending that they derived the knowledge about the ex parte decree having been passed against them only when the order of attachment was passed. It has further been stated that the ex parte decree has since been executed and the decretal amount realized, therefore, there is nothing which deserves to be tried by the trial court after setting aside the ex parte decree.