Liberal construction of sufficient cause and indivisible decree principles allowed full setting aside of an ex parte decree.

Sufficient cause for condoning delay in an application to set aside an ex parte decree was construed liberally where the applicant had earlier actively defended the suit and acted promptly after learning of the decree, so the party was not made to suffer solely for counsel's negligence. The decree was also treated as indivisible in substance because the liabilities of the different defendants were interlinked on the same factual and legal determination. On that purposive reading of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, the ex parte decree could be set aside in its entirety, the plea of res judicata was rejected, and the matter was directed to proceed afresh.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether sufficient cause was shown for setting aside the ex parte decree and for condoning the delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963; (ii) Whether the ex parte decree could be set aside only against the applicant defendant or had to be set aside in its entirety, including the decree in favour of the contesting defendants.

Issue (i): Whether sufficient cause was shown for setting aside the ex parte decree and for condoning the delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: The record showed gross negligence on the part of the applicant's counsel, but the applicant itself had earlier been actively contesting the suit and had engaged counsel and constituted attorneys for its defence. The applicant acted promptly once it learnt of the ex parte decree. The expression "sufficient cause" was construed liberally so that substantial justice is not defeated by technical delay, and the party should not necessarily suffer for the default of its lawyer where the party had done all it reasonably could for the conduct of the case.

Conclusion: Sufficient cause was established, and the delay was condoned in favour of the applicant.

Issue (ii): Whether the ex parte decree could be set aside only against the applicant defendant or had to be set aside in its entirety, including the decree in favour of the contesting defendants.

Analysis: The suit had been framed and tried on an alternative basis, with the liability of the two sets of defendants being interlinked and dependent on the same core factual and legal determination. The decree was treated as indivisible in substance, because the findings against one set of defendants were bound up with the findings against the applicant. A narrow reading of the proviso to Order 9 Rule 13 was rejected, and the proviso was given a purposive construction so that effective relief could be granted and injustice avoided. The plea of res judicata was negatived.

Conclusion: The ex parte decree was liable to be set aside in its entirety, including the decree as against the contesting defendants.

Final Conclusion: The applications were allowed, the ex parte judgment and decree were set aside in full, and the suit was directed to proceed afresh from the stage of framing of issues on terms of costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the liabilities of different sets of defendants are interwoven and the decree is indivisible in substance, the proviso to Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits the decree to be set aside against all affected defendants, and "sufficient cause" under the limitation law must be construed liberally to advance substantial justice.

---