Liberal approach to sufficient cause supports setting aside ex parte decrees when absence is not intentional and merits hearing is justified.

Sufficient cause under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is to be construed liberally to advance substantial justice where the absence is not mala fide or intentional. The relevant inquiry is the explanation for non-appearance on the date the ex parte proceedings were taken up, and the court may prefer a merits-based hearing where the application is within limitation and the opposite party can be compensated by costs. On the stated facts, the appellant's absence was supported by the death of counsel's nephew, personal illness, and posting away from station, so rejecting the medical explanation merely because it came from a private doctor was unduly technical. Sufficient cause was therefore established and the ex parte decree was liable to be set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had shown sufficient cause for non-appearance so as to justify setting aside the ex parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Sufficient cause under Order 9 Rule 13 must be construed liberally to advance substantial justice where the absence is not mala fide or intentional. The relevant inquiry is the explanation for non-appearance on the date when the ex parte proceedings were taken up, and the Court may exercise discretion in favour of deciding the matter on merits, especially where the application is filed within limitation and the opposite party can be compensated by costs. In the present case, the appellant's inability to appear was supported by the death of the counsel's nephew in an accident and by the appellant's own illness and official posting away from station. The refusal to accept the medical explanation merely because it was supported by a private doctor's certificate was held to be unduly technical.

Conclusion: Sufficient cause was established. The ex parte decree was liable to be set aside in favour of the appellant.

---