Introduction:

The Gujarat High Court, in Krishnan Satishbhai Patel & Anr. v. Pankaj Vasantlal Jain, R/Appeal From Order No. 240 of 2025 with Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2025, delivered a significant ruling reiterating the settled principles governing applications under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Justice Devan M. Desai held that legal heirs cannot seek setting aside of an ex-parte decree merely by claiming ignorance of the decree after the death of the original defendant. The Court emphasized that even when a liberal approach is adopted in restoration matters, the defendant must demonstrate a “plausible sufficient cause” for non-appearance. The absence of any explanation for the mother’s failure to contest the suit, despite being served with summons and represented by an advocate, proved fatal to the appellants’ case. The judgment underscores the importance of procedural discipline and the necessity of pleading specific grounds when seeking relief against an ex-parte decree.

Background and Factual Matrix:

The litigation arose from a civil suit filed by Pankaj Vasantlal Jain seeking recovery of possession of certain immovable property. The defendant in the suit was the mother of the present appellants, Krishnan Satishbhai Patel and another. During the pendency of the proceedings, the trial court proceeded ex parte against the defendant and ultimately passed a judgment and decree in favor of the plaintiff. Soon after the decree was passed, the defendant-mother expired. Following her demise, her legal heirs—the present appellants—filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree. They contended that they became aware of the decree only after their mother’s death upon examining relevant documents. The trial court, however, rejected the application on the ground that no sufficient cause had been shown explaining the mother’s non-appearance. Aggrieved by this order, the heirs approached the Gujarat High Court by way of an Appeal from Order.

Arguments on Behalf of the Appellants:

Appearing for the appellants, Advocate Y.N. Ravani assailed the trial court’s decision, contending that the ex-parte decree had been passed without affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the defendant-mother. He argued that the transaction underlying the dispute was not an outright sale but a loan arrangement. According to him, an agreement to sell and a registered sale deed were executed merely as security for the loan, and the full sale consideration was never paid to the deceased defendant. It was further submitted that the plaintiff had misused blank cheques issued by the mother and had initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, thereby exerting pressure. Ravani maintained that the property remained the ownership property of the appellants and their mother, and the ex-parte decree gravely prejudiced their rights. Emphasizing that the appellants came to know about the decree only after their mother’s demise, he urged the Court to adopt a liberal approach consistent with the principles laid down in M.K. Prasad v. P. Arumugam and K.D. Patel v. State of Gujarat. He contended that courts should lean in favor of adjudication on merits rather than shutting out a litigant on technical grounds.

Arguments on Behalf of the Respondent:

The respondent-plaintiff defended the impugned order, submitting that the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was devoid of any specific pleading explaining the mother’s non-appearance. It was pointed out that the appellants had not alleged that summons were not duly served upon the defendant. Nor was it their case that the advocate engaged by the defendant had failed to appear due to any unforeseen circumstance. The respondent argued that the requirement under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is clear and mandatory: the defendant must establish either that summons were not duly served or that sufficient cause prevented appearance on the date of hearing. Mere ignorance of the decree after the defendant’s death cannot substitute for this statutory requirement. The respondent further contended that the appellants were attempting to reopen concluded proceedings without laying the necessary factual foundation.

Court’s Analysis and Findings:

Justice Devan M. Desai began by examining the scope of Order IX Rule 13 CPC, which provides that an ex-parte decree may be set aside if the defendant satisfies the Court that summons were not duly served or that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called for hearing. The Court emphasized that the provision places the burden squarely on the defendant to demonstrate the existence of one of these two grounds. In the present case, the appellants did not dispute service of summons upon their mother. There was no plea that the advocate engaged by her had failed to represent her or that any procedural irregularity had occurred. The Court noted that there was “not even a word” in the restoration application explaining why the mother, despite being duly served and represented, failed to appear and contest the suit. The High Court observed that even if a liberal view is to be taken in restoration matters, some plausible explanation must be offered. Courts cannot presume sufficient cause merely because legal heirs claim ignorance of the decree after the defendant’s death. The statutory requirement cannot be diluted to the extent that the burden shifts away from the applicant. The Court distinguished the judgments relied upon by the appellants, noting that in those cases, specific reasons for delay or non-appearance had been pleaded and substantiated. The Supreme Court had condoned delay in peculiar factual circumstances where sufficient cause was demonstrated. In contrast, the present case lacked any foundational pleading. The Court held that the appellants’ argument about the nature of the transaction or the alleged misuse of cheques was irrelevant to the limited inquiry under Order IX Rule 13. The focus of the provision is on the cause for non-appearance, not the merits of the underlying dispute. Since no sufficient cause was shown, the trial court was justified in rejecting the application. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the impugned order.