JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - These two appeals arise out of two applications for setting aside an ex parte decree. The decree is common in both the cases. The parties are also same. Accordingly, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Money Suit No. 88 of 1979 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur, was posted to 11.2.1981. On that date defendants 1 and 2 filed an application for time, defendant No. 3 also filed another application for time on that day. Both the applications were rejected and all the defendants were set ex parte. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, recorded his inability to dispose of the suit ex Parte on the ground of absence of the Stenographer, who was on leave. On 12.3.1981 to which date the case was posted, the learned Subordinate Judge was engaged in the hearing of Title Suit No. 48 of 1977 and could not get time for ex parte hearing of the suit. Though the defendants were set ex parte on 11-2-1981, no steps were taken to get the ex parte order set aside to be able to contest the case. 3. On 12.3.1981, the defendants did not appear and on 9-4-1981 when the suit was heard ex parte the defendants also did not appear. In the ex parte hearing one witness was examined and seven documents were exhibited. The case was posted to 15-4-1981 for judgment. Even after six days, the learned Subordinate Judge could not deliver the ex parte judgment and posted the case to 18-4-1981 on which date the ex parte judgment was passed. 4. Order 9, Rule 13, CPC provides that sufficient cause is to be shown on the date when the suit was called on forbearing. The date on which the ex parte judgment was passed being an adjourned date, Order 17 would be applicable where the principles of Order 9, Rule 13, C. P. C. would be attracted. The cause in both the applications shown by the learned counsel for the appellants in this Court is that from the earlier dates till the actual date when the suit was called for hearing the defendants were prevented by sufficient cause. Not a word has been breathed either in the applications or in the evidence to show that on the date of hearing there was any sufficient cause. Not a word has been breathed either in the applications or in the evidence to show that on the date of hearing there was any sufficient cause. In case there would have been some material in this case to come to a conclusion that there was sufficient cause for the defendants not to appear on the date when the suit was called for hearing, i.e., 9.4.1981, I would have considered the question of setting aside the ex parte decree. This is, however, a case where there is no material for the purpose of setting aside the ex parte decree. 5. In the result, there is no scope to interfere with the impugned orders. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs throughout. Final Result : Dismissed