Sanjay Gupta @ Sanjay Kumar v. Rajni Semwal

Order IX, R.13 CPC: The aforesaid provisions read as under: "Setting aside decree ex-parte against defendant In any case in which a decree is passed ex-parte against a defendant, he may apply to the Court by which the decree was passed for an order to set it aside; and if he satisfies the Court that the summons was not duly served, or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the decree as against him upon such terms as to costs, payment into Court or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit; CR-5111-2026 (O&M) -8-xx xx xx Provided further that no Court shall set aside a decree passed ex-parte merely on the ground that there has been an irregularity in the service of summons, if it is satisfied that the defendant had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiff's claim. xx xx xx" (Emphasis added)

¶8It is evident from the above that an ex-parte decree against a defendant has to be set aside if the party satisfies the Court that summons had not been duly served or he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing. However, the court shall not set aside the said decree on mere irregularity in the service of summons or in a case where the defendant had notice of the date and sufficient time to appear in the court. The legislature in its wisdom, made the second proviso, mandatory in nature. Thus, it is not permissible for the court to allow the application in utter disregard of the terms and conditions incorporated in the second proviso herein.

¶9"Sufficient Cause" is an expression which has been used in large number of Statutes. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", in as much as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, word "sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platitude which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case and duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause" means that party had not acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or the party cannot be alleged to have CR-5111-2026 (O&M) -9-been "not acting diligently" or "remaining inactive". However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. (Vide: Ramlal & Ors. v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361; Sarpanch, Lonand Grampanchayat v. Ramgiri Gosavi & Anr., AIR 1968 SC 222; Surinder Singh Sibia v. Vijay Kumar Sood, AIR 1992 SC 1540; and Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation & Another,

(2010) 5 SCC 459) xxx xxx xxx

¶12In order to determine the application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC, the test has to be applied is whether the defendant honestly and sincerely intended to remain present when the suit was called on for hearing and did his best to do so. Sufficient cause is thus the cause for which the defendant could not be blamed for his absence. Therefore, the applicant must approach the court with a reasonable defence. Sufficient cause is a question of fact and the court has to exercise its discretion in the varied and special circumstances in the case at hand. There cannot be a strait-jacket formula of universal application."

¶14When the impugned order dated 25.05.2026 (Annexure P-2) is tested on the touchstone of the above-referred judgment rendered in the case of Parimal (supra), no fault can be found with the same. Resultantly, the instant civil revision petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶15All the pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed. (HARSH BUNGER)

20.07.2026 JUDGE

CR-5111-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-5111-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.07.2026 Sanjay Gupta @ Sanjay Kumar ....Petitioner Vs. Rajni Semwal ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present: Ms. Ankita Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** HARSH BUNGER J. (Oral) Prayer in the present civil revision petition is for setting aside the order dated 25.05.2026 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Rent Controller, Faridabad, whereby an application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC seeking setting aside of order dated 12.09.2023, whereby petitioner was proceeded against exparte and also the exparte eviction order dated 28.08.2025 (Annexure P-1); has been dismissed. 2. Briefly, the present respondent-Rajni Semwal filed one petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short "1973 Act") against the petitioner-Sanjay Gupta @ Sanjay Kumar, seeking his eviction from one shop forming part of House No.1135, Rajiv Nagar, Faridabad, on the ground of non-payment of rent, arrears of rent and bona fide requirement of the premises. CR-5111-2026 (O&M) -2- 3. The present petitioner appeared in the aforesaid eviction proceedings and submitted his written statement, inter alia, denying the relationship of landlord and tenant. 3.1 On the other hand, another plea was taken by the petitioner that he had purchased the suit property from the husband of landlady namely Sh. Murti Ram on the basis of agreement dated 12.11.2019 (Annexure P-3) and had made part payment vide cheque No.020896 (Annexure P-4). 4. It transpires that on subsequent occasions, the petitioner failed to appear before the learned Rent Controller and was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 12.09.2023. 4.1 Thereafter, the learned Rent Controller proceeded with the matter and after considering the material available on record, passed an exparte judgment dated 28.08.2025 (Annexure P-1) directing eviction of the petitioner from the disputed property, with a further direction to the petitioner to pay rent of 36 months to the respondent herein, from December 2018 upto January 2020 @ Rs.7500/- per month i.e. Rs.1,05,000/- along with mesne profits @ Rs.7500/- per month till delivery of possession, and interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization of the payment was granted. 5. Subsequently, petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking setting aside of order dated 12.09.2023 whereby petitioner was proceeded against exparte and also the exparte judgment dated 28.08.2025 (Annexure P-1); which has been dismissed vide order dated 25.05.2026 (Annexure P-2). CR-5111-2026 (O&M) -3- 6. In the aforementioned circumstances, present civil revision petition has been filed before this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paperbook with his able assistance. 8. Evidently, respondent herein had filed an eviction petition against the petitioner wherein the petitioner had duly appeared and even filed his written statement, inter alia, denying the relationship of landlord and tenant. Subsequently, the petitioner failed to appear in the eviction proceedings and ultimately, the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 12.09.2023. Thereafter, the trial in the eviction petition proceeded and the learned Rent Controller, Faridabad, vide judgment dated 28.08.2025 (Annexure P-1) ordered the eviction of the petitioner along with payment of rent and mesne profits. 9. Thereafter, in March 2026, the present petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, seeking setting aside of order dated 12.09.2023, vide which the petitioner was proceeded against exparte and also the ex parte judgment dated 28.08.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby the petitioner was ordered to be evicted, on the plea that, he learnt about t