Sufficient cause for setting aside an ex parte decree requires genuine innocence; blaming counsel is not an absolute defence.

Under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, relief from an ex parte decree requires sufficient cause, and the plea that absence occurred on counsel's advice is not an absolute defence. The Supreme Court held that such relief depends on whether the litigant is shown to be innocent and whether the surrounding circumstances justify equitable intervention. On the facts, the defendant company's conduct, the old age of the suit, the final-hearing stage, and contradictions between the defendant and its advocate showed non-cooperation and made the explanation an afterthought. Sufficient cause was therefore not established, and the ex parte decree was not liable to be set aside on that basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent-defendant had shown sufficient cause under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to set aside the ex parte decree, and whether the principle that a party should not suffer for the default of its advocate applied on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The application to set aside the ex parte decree rested on the claim that the defendant had remained absent on the advice of counsel. The Court held that the principle protecting an innocent litigant from the default of counsel cannot be treated as an absolute rule. The relevant facts showed that the suit was an old one posted for final hearing, the defendant was a private limited company with educated management, and the conduct of the defendant and its advocate disclosed contradictions and non-cooperation with the court. The Court concluded that the explanation was an afterthought and that the defendant could not disown the consequences of its own conduct by attributing the entire default to counsel.

Conclusion: Sufficient cause was not established, and the respondent-defendant was not entitled to have the ex parte decree set aside on the basis of counsel's alleged advice.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's later order was set aside, and the earlier order restoring the ex parte decree was revived.

Ratio Decidendi: The default or negligence of counsel may justify relief only where the litigant is shown to be innocent and the surrounding circumstances warrant equitable intervention; there is no absolute right to avoid the consequences of an ex parte order merely by blaming the advocate.

---