Ex parte decree relief requires sufficient cause; long unexplained delay and failed service objections defeated reopening

Service of suit summons at the address furnished by the defendants was returned unclaimed, and substituted service by paper publication was then effected. As no appearance was entered, the suit proceeded ex parte. The defendants later sought to set aside the ex parte decree, but their application was filed after a long delay without any petition to condone delay, and the explanation for the delay was found implausible. In the absence of sufficient cause to reopen the ex parte decree, the High Court upheld dismissal of the application and refused interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners had shown sufficient cause to set aside the ex parte decree and justify interference with the order dismissing their application.

Analysis: The suit summons had been sent to the address furnished by the petitioners and were returned unclaimed. Substituted service by paper publication was effected, yet no appearance was entered and the suit was decreed ex parte. The application to set aside the ex parte decree was filed after a long lapse of time without any petition to condone delay, and the explanation offered for the delay was found to be implausible. The petitioners also failed to establish any sufficient cause for reopening the ex parte decree.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to have the ex parte decree set aside, and the dismissal of their application was upheld.

---