SOBHRAJ SINDHI Vs. MOHD JAHOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by the defendants against the order by which their appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (d), CPC has been dismissed. In this appeal they had challenged the order by which their application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC for setting aside the exparte decree in Civil Suit No. 140-A of 1984 was rejected.

(2.) THE suit was decreed exparte on 17-1-1991. The case of the defendants is that this case was being looked after by the defendant No. 2 Bhagchand who became seriously ill and therefore, he could not attend the hearings of the case from 13-12-89 to 17-1-1991. On the other hand, it has been stated by the plaintiffs that the defendants have been negligent and therefore their absence cannot be condoned and exparte decree cannot be set aside. The Trial Court and Appellate Court have held that there was not sufficient cause for the defendants to remain absent and therefore, exparte decree cannot be set aside.

(3.) AFTER hearing the arguments of both the sides and after scrutiny of the evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the exparte decree ought to have been set aside. The defendants have examined Dr. B. N. Shrivas-tava as a witness. He has deposed that the defendant No. 2-Bhagchand was under his treatment. He has issued certificate on 1-7-1991 (Ex. P-l ). According to this certificate, Bhagchand aged about 60 years was admitted in Medical College Hospital from 14-3-1988 to 28-3-88 for Infective Hepatitis with Pleural Effusion (R) side. He subsequently developed Ischemic Heart Disease for which he was advised rest in bed and treatment from 1-11-1989 to 30-6-1991. Dr. B. N. Shrivastava is a very senior Physician of Jabalpur and he was Head of the Department of Medicines in the Medical College, Jabalpur. Therefore, the genuineness of the certificate issued by him, cannot be doubted. On the basis of this certificate it is proved that defendant-Bhagchand who was looking after this case, was suffering from serious ailment during period of 2 years, prior to the date of passing of the exparte decree. This was sufficient cause for his absence during several hearings in the civil suit. The Courts below have not approached the case in the proper way. It is well settled that the words "sufficient cause" used in Order 9 Rule 13, CPC should be interpreted liberally so as to advance substantial justice. The Courts should not be over-strict. [union of India Vs, Ram Charan, AIR 1964 SC 215].