Ex parte decree restoration upheld where settlement evidence and delayed summons showed sufficient cause for non-appearance.

An order setting aside an ex parte decree and restoring a suit under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC will not ordinarily be disturbed where the trial court has exercised discretion on plausible facts. The respondent showed delayed receipt of summons, a related compromise in connected monetary disputes, payment under the settlement, and withdrawal of the complaint by the petitioner's daughter, which supported sufficient cause for non-appearance. The objection that the compromise concerned only the daughter's claim was treated as a triable issue and not a basis to overturn the discretionary order. The High Court upheld the restoration and declined interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree and restoring the suit under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: The respondent had shown that summons in the civil suit were received after summons in the connected complaint proceedings, and that a compromise had in fact been reached in the related monetary disputes. The record also showed payment pursuant to the settlement and subsequent withdrawal of the complaint by the petitioner's daughter. On these facts, the trial court found that the respondent had sufficient cause for non-appearance in the suit. The challenge that the compromise related only to the daughter's claim was held to raise a matter for trial and not a ground to upset the discretionary order passed under Order IX Rule 13.

Conclusion: The order setting aside the ex parte decree was upheld and no interference was called for.

---