JUDGMENT : 1. An ex parte decree was made by this Court on 10th November 2014. According to the decree, the defendants were directed to pay jointly and severally to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs, as damages together with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. simple interest from the date of the decree till its realisation. 2. This is an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside this ex parte decree. It was filed on 22nd April 2015. 3. For adjudging an application to set aside an ex parte decree, the principle of law which is very well established is that the applicant/defendant has to show that he had sufficient cause for not appearing in Court himself or through counsel, when the matter was taken up. The Court is not permitted to go into the merits of the case. 4. Hence whether the defendant had sufficient cause for not being present in Court when the ex parte decree was passed is predominantly a question of fact which the Court has to examine on the basis of the averments in the application for this purpose and in the affidavit filed in opposition thereto. 5. The suit was instituted in 2013. On 30th November 2013 the summons were delivered to the defendants by registered post. On 11th December 2013 they were delivered to them by personal service. In the summons, it was provided that the defendants had to enter appearance within 15 days of receipt thereof and file their written statement within 35 days of the said service. In fact Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Original Side Rules contains the above stipulation with regard to a defendant residing outside the State of West Bengal but within the Union of India. 6. It was submitted on behalf of the defendants that they entered appearance on 10th April 2014. It is not shown that leave of this Court was taken to enter appearance. Since 15 days’ time from the date of service of the summons had long expired, appearance could not have been entered on 10th April 2014 without the leave of this Court. 7. The defendants did not file any written statement. 8. The certificate, which the plaintiff obtained from the Registry of the Court, was dated 21st February, 2014. It was issued by Deputy Registrar (Ct.& J). 7. The defendants did not file any written statement. 8. The certificate, which the plaintiff obtained from the Registry of the Court, was dated 21st February, 2014. It was issued by Deputy Registrar (Ct.& J). It stated that till 20th February, 2014 the defendants had not entered their appearance in the suit. It followed that the defendants did not file any written statement in the suit. 9. Therefore, the submission that the defendants had entered appearance on 10th April, 2014 is not correct. 10. After the decree, the defendant changed their Advocate on record. They appointed Mr. Arnab Sardar in place of M/s. H.N. Dutta & Co. The entire blame was sought to be put on M/s. H.N. Dutta & Co. I asked the former Advocates on record to file an affidavit. An affidavit has been filed by Mr. Bhupendra Gupta, on 10th August, 2015, one of the partners of M/s. H.N. Dutta & Co. I do not know why, but he has tried to take the whole blame upon himself. He has said in this affidavit that he became implicated from 2012 in an alleged offence said to have been committed by him against his sister in law (brother’s wife). He was acquitted on 8th January, 2015. 11. There is nothing on record to show that after receipt of the summons the defendants had approached their Advocate on record with instructions to enter appearance and file a written statement in answer to the plaintiffs’ claim. Not even an appointment between the Advocate-on-record and the client is disclosed, far less any discussion of the case or any preparation made to defend it by the Advocate and the client. 12. Mr. Dutta says that he travelled out of India for the period 1st November 2014 to 24th November 2014. Even if the partner of a firm, of Advocates, travels outside the country, a firm has sufficient staff to ask for an adjournment. 13. The fact remains that even if Mr. Gupta was in India, according to the records an ex-parte decree was warranted. 14. For whatever reason Mr. Dutta has taken the blame upon himself quite unnecessarily to save his client. One reason for this is perhaps the fact that an Advocate is rarely held guilty for negligence, in our country. His fault is readily ignored by the Courts. 15. Gupta was in India, according to the records an ex-parte decree was warranted. 14. For whatever reason Mr. Dutta has taken the blame upon himself quite unnecessarily to save his client. One reason for this is perhaps the fact that an Advocate is rarely held guilty for negligence, in our country. His fault is readily ignored by the Courts. 15. I find that the defendants have all along not taken any care at all to prosecute the suit. No fault of the Advocate is established 16. Learned Counsel who have now been engaged by the defendants have very fervently urged this Court that whatever the conduct of the defendants, an opportunity should be given to them to defend the case on merits. 17. In my opinion, the case is comprehensively decided on merits and not by default of any party. Moreover, it has not been shown that the defendants got any distinct advantage by having the case decreed ex-parte. In fact, they have suffered a decree for Rs.10 lakhs against them. The Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 has reminded us that “sufficient cause” should be purposively construed in a “Meaningful” manner taking into account the above factors. Therefore, construing the expression “sufficient cause” in a meaningful manner, I am inclined to give the defendants a chance to defend the suit, but conditional upon their payment of Rs.1 Lakh as costs to Mr. Samir Bhattacharyya, the plaintiff No.1 as a condition precedent, by 30th September 2015 to compensate him for the expenses he has incurred in prosecuting the suit and obtaining the decree ex-parte and in defending this application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Further as a condition precedent the defendants will deposit 50% of the decretal amount that is Rs.5 lakhs in favour of Mr. Arnab Sardar, Advocate on record for the defendants, by the said date, who will invest the same in a short term fixed deposit with the State Bank of India, High Court Special Branch, Kolkata, and keep the same renewed from time to time until further orders, upon intimation to the plaintiff No.1. The cost may be appropriated by the plaintiff No.1. The cost may be appropriated by the plaintiff No.1. Upon the Advocate on record for the plaintiff certifying the receipt of this payment by his client and the defendants furnishing proof of the above deposit, the department will allow the defendants to enter their appearance by 15th October, 2015 and to file their written statement by 30th November, 2015. The decree dated 10th November 2014 is set aside subject to fulfillment of the above conditions by the defendants by 30th September 2015. In default, liberty to apply. 18. This application is accordingly disposed of. Certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.