AMITAVA LALA, J. ( 1 ) THE Court : This is an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure virtually for recalling the orders dated 5th August, 1999 and 26th August, 1999 respectively by which two decrees were passed in respect of principal sum and interest in an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as in hearing undefended suit respectively. Although, some other prayers were made but those above are consequential to the aforesaid two reliefs. ( 2 ) THE petitioner/defendant has made two-fold submissions before this Court by saying that they were prevented by sufficient cause in attending the Court on the relevant dates and times when the decrees were passed and such decrees were obtained by the respondent/plaintiff by practising fraud upon the Court. ( 3 ) ALTHOUGH, the application was belatedly made i. e. by a supporting affidavit dated 22nd August, 2000 about a year after passing such decrees but since the question of fraud has been taken which may ultimately culminate to nullity, there cannot be any hindrance in entertaining such application at any stage of the proceeding. ( 4 ) THEREFORE ignoring the question of delay I have entered in to the merit of the application. ( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY the writ of summons was served upon the petitioner/defendant in 1999. The petitioner explained it's case that since no office of the defendant is in Calcutta, the petitioner posted the fact to one Mr. J. K. Singhania in Calcutta to look after the litigation in the specific manner firstly by trying to approach the respondent/plaintiff and get the matter settled at the initial stage or failing such settlement by engaging a lawyer of this Court to defend the suit. However such conditional engagement of lawyer is an utter surprise to this Court. ( 6 ) ON 18th July, 2000 when a Receiver in an Execution application arising out of the decrees under an order dated 23rd June, 2000 visited the petitioner's factory they come to know passing of a decrees by this Court on the above dates. Immediately thereafter steps were taken and the present application was filed on 22nd August, 2000. It is categorically contened by the petitioner under paragraph 11 that the petitioner never received any copy of the application for judgment upon admission on which the decree was passed. Immediately thereafter steps were taken and the present application was filed on 22nd August, 2000. It is categorically contened by the petitioner under paragraph 11 that the petitioner never received any copy of the application for judgment upon admission on which the decree was passed. Therefore, the petitioner was prevented by sufficient causes from contesting the application for judgment upon admission to which the petitioner had substantial defence on merit. ( 7 ) I have carefully gone through the annexure 'c' and 'd' to the petitioner which are appeared to be dictated orders of the Court under which the decrees were passed. On 5th August, 1999, this Court was pleased to pass a decree in respect of the principal sum of Rs. 8,26,237/- and postponed the application for the purpose of passing of decree as to the interest by granting leave to the respondent/plaintiff to file a supplementary affidavit incorporating authenticate documents in support of its total claim of Rs. 14,39,723/- which includes interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum. It was directed by the Court the matter will appear under the heading "undefendant suit" for the rest of the claim. ( 8 ) ON 26th August, 1999, the decree was passed on account of interest upon verifying the documents as well as oral evidences. ( 9 ) ON this issue, the petitioner contended before this Court that the respondent/plaintiff mis-directed the Court by concealment of material facts in obtaining the judgment upon admission which amounts to fraud. The categorical statements as made in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the petition are that the judgment upon admission as per letter of the petitioner/defendant dated 9th June, 1994 cannot be made in view of the payments of Rs. 4,50,000/- time to time in between 14th August, 1995 and 30th August, 1997. According to them such payment are admitted sum and plaintiff did not tell the Court about adjustment of such amount. Having done so, there would have been a decree for the balance sum of Rs. 3,76,237/ -. Such concealment of material facts by the respondent/plaintiff caused obtaining decree by making fraud upon the Court. Other points are not much relevant. As regards to the question of limitation, the delay is condoned by necessary implication since the respondent has not raised such defence and question of fraud has to be spelt out at any point of time. Such concealment of material facts by the respondent/plaintiff caused obtaining decree by making fraud upon the Court. Other points are not much relevant. As regards to the question of limitation, the delay is condoned by necessary implication since the respondent has not raised such defence and question of fraud has to be spelt out at any point of time. ( 10 ) THE petitioner's case was vehemently opposed by the respondent/plaintiff. According to him, there is no explanation as to what the petitioner/defendant actually did after service of the writ of summons in 1999. No one prevented them from coming to Court and to oppose the application for judgment upon admission or the suit by contesting the same. Since this is an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same has to be considered at first by Court of law. Moreover, the conduct of the petitioner/defendant is not at all good at any point of time. They have suppressed the material facts on various manner. Firstly they stated that this is a mistake that the defendant had no office in Calcutta. Secondly the copy of the application for judgment upon admission was duly served even at the office of the petitioner/defendant in Tamilnadu when no acknowledgement has returned, the petitioner obtained an appropriate certificate from the department of Posts and Telegraph, India issued by the Deputy Director of Post Office Administration, dated 22nd July, 1999 and kept in the record under which this the registered articles No. 2629 delivered on 27th March, 1999 within three days from the date of service on 24th of March, 1999. ( 11 ) HOWEVER, according to them, primarily under this application, Court will consider whether the petitioner/defendant has prevented from appearing by any sufficient cause or not but since the question of fraud has been agitated by the petitioner/defendant, Court has to look into the fact what are the grounds of fraud. It appears from the paragraph 13 of the application, that concealment of material facts of payments in between 14th August, 1995 and 30th August, 1997 for a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- is a question of fraud. But from the annexure to the affidavit, it appears that the Court was directed to file a supplementary affidavit, the statements of accounts duly certified by a Chartered Accountant to show authenticity of the documents which were done accordingly. 4,50,000/- is a question of fraud. But from the annexure to the affidavit, it appears that the Court was directed to file a supplementary affidavit, the statements of accounts duly certified by a Chartered Accountant to show authenticity of the documents which were done accordingly. Thereafter the decree was passed on 26th August, 1999 as regards interest being the balance sum. Therefore, under no stretch of imagination it can be said that there was any concealment of facts. ( 12 ) I have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties. According to me prevention of party in a sufficient cause on a question of exparte decree cannot be equated in passing decree by a Court in a undefendant suit or in unopposed application. This is because the defending party did not choose to appear, which is a fundamentally different from an aggrieved party who was prevented by sufficient cause. There is no question of fulfilment of principle of audi-alteram-partem in the present case. Factually no explanation is available on the part of the petitioner/defendant as to what prevented them in entering/appearance and file written statement in the suit and file the affidavit-in-opposition in the application. It is unbelievable in the commercial world that a party having knowledge of the suit and concept of commercial business wait and see the matter from outside the Court with hope of purported settlement. Under these circumstances explanation as to knowledge only on 5th August, 1999 when the Receiver visited the place under an execution application is also unbelievable. ( 13 ) THEREFORE the remaining question is a question of fraud. Concealment of the material facts cannot be a fraud or fraudulent practice upon the Court until and unless it is shown that there is a active concealment of such material facts in drawing an inference by the Court to that extent. It appears to this Court that the statements by way of a supplementary affidavit supported by certificate of the Chartered Accountant has been filed so that the Court can understand the adjustment of account. The question has been raised before this Court that the several payments are made in between 1995 and 1997 totalling to a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- which are not taken into account but I do not find any such statement. Every where of the authenticated document produced before the Court in such supplementary affidavit figure of Rs. The question has been raised before this Court that the several payments are made in between 1995 and 1997 totalling to a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- which are not taken into account but I do not find any such statement. Every where of the authenticated document produced before the Court in such supplementary affidavit figure of Rs. 4,50,000/- are stated correctly giving an adjustment. Now whether such amount will be adjusted as against the principal sum or against the interest; what would be the rate of interest; whether compound or simple rate cannot neither be the materials for drawing inference as regards fraud practiced upon the Court nor can be construed as sufficient cause for recalling or setting aside the decrees. Therefore, taking into totality the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not find any sufficient cause for recalling and setting aside the decrees dated 5th August, 1999 and 26th of August, 1999 respectively. Thus application failed and hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, no order is passed as to costs. Prayer for stay is made, considered and refused. Xeroxed certified copy of this judgment will be supplied to the parties within seven days from the date of putting requisites. All parties are to act on a signed copy minutes of the operative part of this judgment on the usual undertaking and subject to satisfaction of the Officer of the Court in respect of above. Application dismissed.