Judgment :- Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. Although the matter is appearing under the heading ‘application’, on the prayer of Mr. Mainak Bose, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, and Mr. Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, learned advocate appearing for the respondent, the appeal itself is taken up for hearing upon dispensation of all formalities. This is an appeal against order dated March 6, 2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fifth Court, Alipore, in Miscellaneous Case No. 16 of 2011. By the order impugned, the learned trial judge rejected an application filed by the defendant-appellant under Order IX, rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Undisputedly, the parties entered into an agreement for sale on December 16, 2007. The defendant agreed to convey the property-in-suit in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.12, 75,000/- (Rupees twelve lakh seventy five thousand) only. The defendant accepted Rs.7, 00,000/- (Rupees seven lakh) only towards earnest money/advance. As the defendant did not execute the deed of sale in spite of repeated demands, the plaintiff approached the Court with a suit for specific performance of contract. The suit was registered as Title Suit No. 1342 of 2008 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fifth Court, Alipore. In connection with the said suit, an application for temporary injunction was filed. The defendant contested the application for temporary injunction. Upon a contested hearing, by order dated May 30, 2008, the application for temporary injunction was allowed in favour of the plaintiff. After the disposal of the application for temporary injunction, the defendant took no steps in the suit. On September 11, 2008, the plaintiff filed his examination-in-chief on affidavit. He tendered certain documents. The documents were marked. The Court found that the agreement dated December 16, 2007 was prepared on insufficient stamp paper. Therefore, the said document was impounded and the said document was sent to the Collector for determination of the stamp duty. The Collector assessed the stamp duty and penalty. The plaintiff deposited the amount claimed. Thereafter, the agreement was marked as an exhibit. The learned judge fixed June 30, 2010 for argument. On June 30, 2010, the learned judge, considering the materials on record, decreed the suit ex-parte. On March 29, 2011, the defendant filed an application under Order IX, rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside of the said ex-parte decree. The learned judge fixed June 30, 2010 for argument. On June 30, 2010, the learned judge, considering the materials on record, decreed the suit ex-parte. On March 29, 2011, the defendant filed an application under Order IX, rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside of the said ex-parte decree. The application was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing such application. The proceeding was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 16 of 2011 in the said Court. Initially, the application for condonation of delay was rejected by the trial court. The defendant approached this Court with an appeal, which was tendered under F.M.A.T. No. 1341 of 2011. A Division Bench of this Court, by order dated December 5, 2011, although recorded that there were some faults on the part of the defendant in making such application, but allowed the said appeal subject, however, to payment of costs to Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) only. The cost was paid. Therefore, the application under Order IX, rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was taken up for consideration by the trial court on merits. The application under Order IX, rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed alleging that the defendant engaged Mr. Arindam Das, a practicing advocate of Alipore Court, who did not take any step in the suit for reasons best known to him. However, in the examination-in-chief on affidavit, the defendant disclosed the name of his learned advocate as Mr. Nibir Roy. There is no explanation in the examination-in-chief as to how Mr. Arindam Das becomes Mr. Nibir Roy. Rule 13 of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for setting aside of an ex-parte decree passed against a defendant. However, in the examination-in-chief on affidavit, the defendant disclosed the name of his learned advocate as Mr. Nibir Roy. There is no explanation in the examination-in-chief as to how Mr. Arindam Das becomes Mr. Nibir Roy. Rule 13 of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for setting aside of an ex-parte decree passed against a defendant. Under the said provision, 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 date for proceeding with the suit. Therefore, under rule 13 an application by the defendant to set aside an ex-parte decree passed against him could be maintained when the defendant satisfies the Court that the summons was not duly served on him or that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing. The rule is imperative. The language of the rule is clear, express and explicit. If either of the conditions is satisfied, the Court shall set aside the ex-parte decree. Where, however, the case does not fall within the four corners of rule 13, the Court has no jurisdiction to set aside an ex-parte decree. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ has not been defined in the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court possesses wide discretion. The Court should be liberal in construing the expression ‘sufficient cause’ in the larger interest of justice. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ must be construed liberally so as to enable the Court to exercise powers ex debito justitiae. Whether or not a particular cause is a sufficient cause will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Necessary materials must be placed on record to show that the defendant was diligent and vigilant. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ must be construed liberally so as to enable the Court to exercise powers ex debito justitiae. Whether or not a particular cause is a sufficient cause will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Necessary materials must be placed on record to show that the defendant was diligent and vigilant. Conversely, if the Court finds that there was no sufficient cause and the defendant fails to appear before the Court, the ex-parte decree cannot be set aside and his prayer for setting aside the ex-parte decree must be dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial judge disbelieved the case of the defendant and came to a finding that the defendant’s case that his learned advocate, Mr. Arindam Das, was negligent could not be accepted. The entire tenor of the application for setting aside of the ex-parte decree was that the defendant engaged Mr. Arindam Das, but he was negligent. There is no material to show that the defendant ever engaged Mr. Arindam Das to conduct this suit. The defendant, in fact, engaged Mr. Nibir Roy. Therefore, the story concocted by the defendant in the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree was not, rightly, accepted by the trial court. In this case, the learned judge, in our view, rightly, recorded a finding that there was no sufficient cause. After the disposal of the injunction matter, the defendant did not take any step in the suit. When the decree was passed ex-parte, he approached the Court with a story that he engaged one Mr. Arindam Das, who did not take steps in the suit. It was established, beyond any doubt, that such story was concocted by the defendant for the purpose of making the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree. He never engaged Mr. Arindam Das for conducting his case. He engaged Mr. Nibir Roy. After disposal of the injunction matter, the defendant went to slumber. When an ex-parte decree is passed, he comes before the Court with an incorrect story putting the entire blame on a person, who was not concerned in the matter. Since the defendant fails to satisfy the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance, the Court below, rightly, dismissed the application. When an ex-parte decree is passed, he comes before the Court with an incorrect story putting the entire blame on a person, who was not concerned in the matter. Since the defendant fails to satisfy the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance, the Court below, rightly, dismissed the application. We do not think that the learned judge exercised his discretion erroneously in rejecting the application under Order IX, rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. In view of dismissal of the appeal, the connected application for stay, filed under C.A.N. No. 3332 of 2012 becomes infructuous and is, therefore, rejected. We make no order as to costs. Let Xerox plain copy of this order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the learned advocates appearing for the parties on usual undertakings. Murari Prasad Shrivastava, J. I agree