JUDGMENT : 1. With the consent of the parties, the present Appeal from Order has been taken up for final disposal. 2. By filing present Appeal from Order 43, Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated 25.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional City Civil Judge (Court No.15), City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Misc. Application No.95/2020, whereby the application preferred by the appellants under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC” for short) came to be rejected. 3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present Appeal from Order are as under, 3.1 The respondent herein had filed Civil Suit No.645/1994 before the learned City Civil Court, Ahmedabad inter alia praying for partition of the property being Sub Plot Nos.3, 10 & 11 admeasuring 937.55 Sq.Mtrs., 2573 Sq.Mtrs. and 802.32 Sq.Mrs. respectively situated in Town Planning Scheme No.29, Final Plot No.127 at Vadaj, Ahmedabad as also property situated at Shahpur, which is an ancestral property (hereinafter referred to as “the suit properties” for short). Thus, the suit was filed between the family members. 3.2 On filing of the said suit, notice came to be issued upon the defendants therein, who are the appellants herein and upon service of notice, the appellants have appeared before the learned City Civil Court through their advocate. Pending said suit, the original defendant no.1 passed away and, hence, her heirs were brought on record, who appeared and filed their written statement. 3.3 Thereafter, the respondent no.1 filed examination in chief in the suit and as soon as the said fact came to the notice of the appellant no.4, an application for joining third party to the suit proceeding came to be filed, which was rejected by the learned Judge, against which, writ petition being Special Civil Application No.21886/2019 came to be filed before this Hon’ble Court, wherein notice was issued and it was pending at the relevant point of time. 3.4 Pending above writ petition, the suit proceedings were continued and the respondents submitted an application to close the rights of cross-examination of the appellants, which came to be allowed by the learned Judge and, thereafter, proceeded with the suit proceedings. 3.4 Pending above writ petition, the suit proceedings were continued and the respondents submitted an application to close the rights of cross-examination of the appellants, which came to be allowed by the learned Judge and, thereafter, proceeded with the suit proceedings. Not only that, closing purshis was submitted by the respondents and, thereafter, the arguments of the respondent were heard and the learned Judge pronounced the judgment and order on 27.12.2020 in absence of the appellants and also drawn preliminary decree. 3.5 However thereafter, the appellants preferred Civil Misc. Application No.95/2020 under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC for restoration of the suit on the ground of that the judgment and order was passed in their absence. However, the learned Judge, by impugned order, rejected the said application, which has been assailed in the present Appeal from Order. 4. Heard learned advocate, Mr. J.F. Mehta for the appellants and learned advocate, Mr. Kunjal Pandya for respondents. 5. Learned advocate submitted that the aforesaid suit has been filed by the respondent no.1 before the learned City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad in the year 1994 inter alia praying for partition of the suit properties and pending suit proceedings, the original defendant no.1 passed away and, hence, her heirs were brought on record. Learned advocate submitted that on filing of the suit, notice was issued and in pursuance thereto, the appellants have appeared before the learned Judge and opposed the suit by filing written statement. Learned advocate submitted that during the pendency of the suit proceedings, the examination of chief of the plaintiff had been submitted and due to nonappearance of the original plaintiff for longer period of time, the suit was dismissed for default for want of prosecution by the learned Judge. Learned advocate submitted that during the pendency of the suit proceedings, the examination of chief of the plaintiff had been submitted and due to nonappearance of the original plaintiff for longer period of time, the suit was dismissed for default for want of prosecution by the learned Judge. Learned advocate submitted that pending suit, original property owner had executed registered “Will” in favour of her grandson, therefore on the strength of the said “Will”, an application was preferred by the grandson before the learned Civil Judge to join him as party defendant in the suit proceedings as legal heirs through “Will”, however, the said application was not entertained by the learned Civil Judge and being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant no.4 had approach this Hon’ble Court by filing writ petition being Special Civil Application No.21886/2019 and pending said writ petition, the suit was restored and proceeded with and ultimately, preliminary decree has been passed by the learned Civil Judge. Learned advocate submitted that however at that relevant point of time, it was brought to the notice of the court concerned that certain offsuit proceedings have been challenged before this Hon’ble Court, which are pending, however without considering the said suit, the learned Judge proceeded with the suit proceedings and ultimately, drawn ex parte preliminary decree. 6. Learned advocate submitted that as stated above, the suit was dismissed for default for want of prosecution, however before that, the matter had reached at the stage of leading of evidence on the part of plaintiff but she failed to remain present on many occasions, which resulted into dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution and, thereafter, it was restored without informing to other side and, thereafter, the learned Judge proceeded with the same and at that point of time, fact of pendency of writ petition was brought to the notice of the learned Judge but it has not been considered and ex parte decree came to be passed. Learned advocate submitted that being aggrieved by the said order, the father of the appellants had preferred an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC to quash and set aside the ex parte decree passed on 26.11.2019, however, the said application had not been entertained by the learned Judge, therefore, the said order has been assailed by the appellants by filing writ petition. 7. 7. Learned advocate submitted that at the time of deciding application preferred by the appellants, the learned Judge has not given cogent, convincing and reliable evidence and learned Judge has given finding to the effect that in many cases, the litigants are advised to watch the proceedings and let order/ decree be passed and then, to prefer an application to set aside the decree claiming the ignorance of the proceeding. Learned advocate submitted that the application had not been entertained by the court concerned without assigning any justifiable reason, which would not germane with the facts connected with the proceedings. Learned advocate submitted that in fact, the rights of the parties are required to be decided on merits rather than depriving it on technical ground. Learned advocate submitted that it is an admitted position of fact that the original defendant no.1 passed away during the pendency of the suit proceedings and he had bequeathed the suit proceeding to the appellant no.1, therefore, the said opportunity is required to be given and the said legitimate rights of the appellant no.1 had been curtailed by the concerned court. Learned advocate submitted that as stated above, despite pointing out about the pendency of the writ petition before this Hon’ble Court, the said aspect has not been properly considered. 8. Learned advocate submitted that on service of notice, the defendants have appeared before the learned court and filed their written statement, in that event, the learned Judge ought to have decided the suit on merits after giving opportunity to lead evidence to the parties but instead thereof, the learned Judge has closed the right of the defendants to lead evidence at first instant. Learned advocate submitted that as stated above, because of the absenteeism of the original plaintiff, the suit was dismissed for default and, thereafter, it was restored and thus, when the opportunity was given to the original plaintiff, in that event, equal treatment ought to have been given to the defendants. 9. Learned advocate has put reliance upon following decisions, (1) the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Garment Craft Vs. Prakash Chand Goel, reported in (2022) 4 SCC 181 ; (2) the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of G. Ratna Raj Vs. 9. Learned advocate has put reliance upon following decisions, (1) the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Garment Craft Vs. Prakash Chand Goel, reported in (2022) 4 SCC 181 ; (2) the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of G. Ratna Raj Vs. Sri Muthukumarasamy Permanent Fund Ltd., reported in (2019) 11 SCC 301 ; (3) the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Gopal Nagar Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Aslam @ Abu Bakar & Etc., reported in (2019) 14 SCC 688 ; 10. Referring to the ratio enunciated in the aforesaid decisions as well as referring to the facts of the case, learned advocate submitted that the case of the applicant is squarely covered by the said decisions. It is, therefore, urged that the present Appeal from Order may be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned order and thereby direct the learned City Civil Judge to hear and decide the suit on merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity to both the parties. 11. On the other hand, learned advocate, Pandya has opposed the present Appeal from Order with a vehemence and submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Judge is just, fair, reasonable and based upon sound principle of law. Learned advocate submitted that in fact, during the pendency of the present proceedings, the trial court had already proceeded further and ultimately final decree is passed, therefore, the final decree is required to be challenged by way of preferring First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC and the present Appeal from Order would automatically become infructuous and/or along with the First Appeal, the order passed by the learned Judge below application preferred under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC is required to be challenged together by saying so. Learned advocate has raised preliminary issue about the maintainability of the present Appeal from Order. He submitted that as the final decree is passed and the said order is not challenged before any higher forum, in that event, the effect of the outcome of the present proceeding would become redundant and, hence, the present Appeal from Order is required to be dismissed solely on that count. 12. He submitted that as the final decree is passed and the said order is not challenged before any higher forum, in that event, the effect of the outcome of the present proceeding would become redundant and, hence, the present Appeal from Order is required to be dismissed solely on that count. 12. Learned advocate further submitted that for the purpose of deciding the issue involved in the matter, certain sequence of events of incidents occurred during the pendency of the suit proceeding are required to be seen. He submitted that in support of his contention and to substantiate hi claim, he has produced copy of record including Rojkam of the learned trial court and after referring to the same, he submitted that on 11.02.1994, the original plaintiff had filed suit, wherein notice was issued, which was duly served upon the defendants and in pursuance to the said notice, the original defendant no.2 appeared through his advocate and sought time to file written statement. Thereafter on 25.03.1994 and 26.09.1995, the original defendant nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 were found absent and on the next day, the defendants filed their appearance, thereafter, the suit remained pending for longer period of time. He submitted that on 13.01.2006, original defendant no.1, Vijiben had executed “Will” in favour of son of the original defendant no.2 and, thereafter on 17.08.2008, the said Vijiben died. Learned advocate submitted that on 13.03.2018, an application was preferred to bring legal heirs of the defendant no.1. On 05.09.2018, the defendant no.2’s son, Jigneshbhai made an application, Exh.93 to join him as legal heirs of the original defendant no.1 and to set aside the order of abatement as she died during the pendency of the suit proceeding. He submitted that the said application was preferred on the basis of the rights in the properties, which were bequeathed to him through “Will”. In the said application, it is categorically stated that learned advocate representing the defendant no.1 had not satisfactorily responded, therefore, he made inquiry about the proceedings through another advocate and came to know about the pendency of the suit, therefore belatedly the said application was preferred, which was rejected on 13.09.2019 and the said order was assailed before this Hon’ble Court by preferring writ petition being SCA No.21886/2019, however, the said application was also rejected on 10.12.2019. He submitted that in fact, during the pendency of the petition before this Hon’ble Court, the learned trial court had proceeded with the suit and issues were framed on 13.12.2018 and, thereafter, the matter had reached at the stage of recording of the evidence of the plaintiff, who already tendered examination in chief but could not remain present to make cross-examination and on 07.01.2019, the suit was dismissed for default for want of prosecution, however within three days, an application was preferred for restoration of the suit, which was allowed by the learned trial court, however, the said order of restoration has not been challenged by the defendants before any higher forum, hence, the said order has attained finality. He submitted that the defendants were aware about the pendency of the proceedings, despite the said fact, they were permitted to proceed with the proceeding ex parte and allowed the suit to proceed till preliminary decree is passed. He read the provision of the Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC and submitted that at the time of deciding the application preferred by the defendants under the said provision, very detailed and minute discussion were being made by the learned Judge specifically stating that at the time of tendering the examination in chief in the ex parte suit proceeding, copy of the deposition of the plaintiff was already served to the defendants through Registered Post AD but despite service of the same, they have chosen not to appear and contest the suit and make cross-examination of the plaintiff, therefore at such belated stage, they cannot come with an excuse that they were not aware about continuation of proceedings. He submitted that an application preferred by the son of the defendant no.2 to join him as party defendant had not been entertained by the learned trial court and the said order was also assailed by him before this Hon’ble Court, however there was no stay granted by this Hon’ble Court expressly and they were well aware about the suit proceedings before the learned trial court and they had made attempts to stall the proceedings by submitting an application that the order is challenged before the higher forum, wherein notice has been issued by the Hon’ble Court, therefore, unless and until those proceedings are disposed of, the trial court may not proceed further and the said request made by the defendants had not been considered by the learned trial court, therefore, they ought to have remained more vigilant, inspite of that, they have permitted the plaintiff to lead the evidence and the learned trial court to proceed further. Learned advocate has referred to the Rojkam produced on record and submitted that from the said Rojkam, it clearly goes on to show that on 24.07.2019, the suit was listed before the court and learned advocates of both the parties had remained present, therefore, it cannot be said that the defendants were not aware about the restoration of the suit and further proceedings carried out in the suit proceedings. Learned advocate submitted that aforesaid chronology of sequence of events clearly goes on to show that the defendants are well aware about the continuation of the suit proceedings, despite the said fact, they had not appeared and contested the suit proceedings, therefore at such belated stage, by raising lam excuses of not aware about the restoration of the suit proceedings are at all not believable and palatable. 13. Learned advocate once again read the provision of the Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC and submitted that for the purpose of entertaining the application preferred under the said provision, certain basic and essential requirements are required to be satisfied i.e. (1) ex parte decree must have been passed; and (2) there was sufficient cause to show that the defendants were not at all aware about on going proceedings. He further submitted that on the strength of above stated factual aspect, it is clearly found out from the record itself that the defendants are well aware about on going proceedings in the suit. He further submitted that on the strength of above stated factual aspect, it is clearly found out from the record itself that the defendants are well aware about on going proceedings in the suit. He further submitted that the suit is filed by one of the sisters against the mother and sibling for partition and as per the evidence available on record, the brother of the plaintiff got one-fifth share in the ancestral property and at the time of passing an order and making an order of preliminary decree, one-fifth share of his part has already been parted in his favour by the court concerned, therefore even otherwise, as per the statutory provision of law, more particularly, as per the provision of the Succession Act, he has already got share of his part. 14. Learned advocate further submitted that the appellant no.4 is the son of the original defendant no.2, who had filed petition before this Hon’ble Court and, thereafter, legal heirs have been brought on record. Learned advocate submitted that it is the specific case of the plaintiff that the said property is belonging to forefather of the plaintiff and defendants and there was family dispute between the father of the plaintiff and the uncle of the plaintiff and the suit was filed, wherein particular portion of the suit property had come in the share of the father of the plaintiff, therefore admittedly, the suit property is ancestral property of the parties and after the sad demises of the father of the plaintiff, names of the parties have been mutated in the record of rights and as per the settled proposition of law, certain part from the suit property had come in the share of the mother being legal heirs of the deceased. He submitted that admittedly the defendant no.1, mother of the plaintiff, had not purchased the suit property by her own earning, therefore even otherwise, legally she is not entitled to entrust/ bequeath the suit property to any person by executing “Will” and secondly, the person in whose favour, “Will” was executed, was tried to enter into the proceeding by way of preferring an application to join him as legal heirs of the defendant no.1 but the said application had not been entertained and the said order was also confirmed by this Court, therefore even otherwise, the son of the defendant is not party in the proceedings, therefore, are not entitled to get any share in the said property. Learned advocate further submitted that in fact, the plaintiff and the defendants all are residing in the same house, therefore, it cannot be said that the defendants were not aware about the suit proceeding as also restoration of the suit property. It is, therefore, urged that considering the above facts, the present Appeal from Order may be dismissed. 15. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having gone through the material and evidence available on record, it is found out from the record that the respondent, Arunaben, who is original plaintiff, filed suit for partition against her mother and sibling in the year 1994, wherein notice was issued, which was duly served and in pursuance thereto, the defendants appeared through their counsel. The defendant no.2 had engaged advocate but did not file written submission nor make cross-examination of the plaintiff, thereafter, the suit was lying pending in idle mode for longer period of time. It is found out from the record that the defendant no.1, Vijiben died on 07.08.2008, however before her death, she had already executed a “Will” in favour of son of the defendant no.2 for the disputed property on 13.01.2006. Thereafter, the learned trial court has framed the issue on 03.12.2018 and the matter had reached at the stage of recording of the evidence of the plaintiff but the plaintiff did not lead any evidence and in absence of it, the said suit was dismissed for default for want of prosecution on 07.01.2019, however within three days, it had been restored on submission of restoration application. It is found out from the record that the said order of restoration had not been challenged by the defendants before any higher forum, therefore, the said order has attained finality and the learned trial court has proceeded with the suit proceedings. The plaintiff has prepared examination in chief of her deposition, copy of which was also forwarded to the defendants through Registered Post AD, receipts thereof have been produced on record, however despite service of copy of examination in chief, the defendants had chosen not to appear and cross-examine the plaintiff, therefore the right to make cross-examination had been closed. The said suit was proceeded further and at the end of day, when the plaintiff had started closing the matter and when the matter reached at the stage of cross examination of the defendants as none remained present for the defendants, therefore, right to lead evidence had been also closed by the learned trial court and, thereafter, the arguments were heard and ultimately, preliminary decree was passed by the court concerned. It is also found out that the defendant no.2 and his son, Jignesh is residing in the same premises. It is also found out that the defendant no.2 and his son, Jignesh is residing in the same premises. It is not the case of the defendant no.2 that they have separated and residing at different place, therefore, it is to be presumed that they are the members of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and the defendant no.2, son had filed an application in the proceeding to bring him as legal heirs of the deceased, however, the said application had not been not entertained and, hence, writ petition came to be filed before this Hon’ble Court challenging the said order, wherein notice was issued but no stay had not been granted and during the pendency of the said writ petition, the suit was proceeded further and they tried hard to impress upon the court concerned that during the pendency of the writ petition, the learned trial court should not proceed further because the issue is already pending at large before this Hon’ble Court, however, the said request made by the son of the defendant no.2 has not produced any document/ material to show that any order of staying further proceeding is passed to the effect that the son of the defendant no.2 has failed to bring on record any stay order passed by the higher forum expressing that during the pendency of the writ petition, the trial court ought not to have to proceed further and in absence of any express order of stay, the learned trial court has proceeded further and, thereafter on 10.12.2019, writ petition filed before this Court was rejected, therefore, the son of the defendant no.2 is well aware about the continuous of proceedings before the learned trial court, therefore on the strength of the aforesaid factual aspects, it can be inferred that the defendant no.2 was well aware about the on going proceedings before the trial court. It is also found out from the record that learned advocate, to whom the defendant no.1 had engaged, had remained present before the court, therefore, it is to be assumed that it was well within the knowledge of the defendant no.2 that the trial was going on, despite the said fact, instead of attending the court proceedings, they have watched the court proceedings to be decided in their absence and waited for the outcome of the proceeding and as soon as the order of preliminary decree has been passed, they have approached the court with a specific case that they were at all not aware about the suit proceeding as also by stating that when they appeared in the court at the relevant time, due to non-availability of the plaintiff, the learned trial court had passed an order of dismissal of the suit in absence of the plaintiff and the said suit had been restored behind their back without issuing notice and/or without informing to the advocate of the defendants. Not only that, then after the evidence of the plaintiff was recorded and even at that relevant point of time, endorsement of learned advocate, who was representing the original defendant no.1 upon the examination in chief of the plaintiff had not been recorded, therefore, the defendant no.2 and learned advocate both are not at all aware about the proceedings of the court, therefore, it can safely be said that ex parte proceedings have been tried and conducted as per the provision of the Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC, if any proceeding is conducted ex parte without the knowledge of the defendant, in that event, the ex parte decree is required to be quashed and set aside and sufficient opportunity is required to be given to the parties concerned to bring on record correct facts by making crossexamination of the witnesses as well as leading important evidence on record. However all above contentions raised by the original defendants are nothing but to take advantage of the situation to restore the suit again by quashing and setting aside the impugned decree, that too, after having complete knowledge about the on going proceedings. 16. However all above contentions raised by the original defendants are nothing but to take advantage of the situation to restore the suit again by quashing and setting aside the impugned decree, that too, after having complete knowledge about the on going proceedings. 16. It is contended by learned advocate for the plaintiff that when the substantial question of law is connected with core issue of right of the parties and technical justice are pilted with each other, in that event, balance of scale of justice always tilted in favour of the substantial justice and if the appellants are permitted to make crossexamination and lead evidence, in that event, no any damage is going to cause, otherwise, ultimately at the end of day, real fact would come on surface and justice will prevail themselves. It is required to be noted that the application preferred by the defendants had been rejected by the learned Judge by assigning cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. It is clearly stated in the operative part of the order that the copy of examination in chief of the plaintiff had been sent to all the defendants through Registered Post AD and purshis to that effect along with the acknowledgment of receipt have been given by learned advocate of the plaintiff to the court concerned, which clearly goes on to show that the plaintiff has tried her level best to bring to the notice of the defendants that the trial has already been proceeded with but despite service of copy of the examination in chief through Registered Post AD, they have chosen not to appear and contest the proceedings, therefore, the conduct of the defendants clearly goes on to show that they have deliberately not attended the court proceedings and/or rather permitted the court to conduct the proceeding ex parte and after passing of the order of preliminary decree, they had come with a case that they are not at all aware about the pendency of the proceeding and the said fact narrated by the parties in the application are prima facie found against the material available on record. 17. Furthermore, it is undisputed fact that the summons is served to appellants - original defendants and they have engaged advocate on their behalf and also appearance is filed in the suit. 17. Furthermore, it is undisputed fact that the summons is served to appellants - original defendants and they have engaged advocate on their behalf and also appearance is filed in the suit. It is also found out that at no point of time, the appellants had cared to file any written statement or objection to the suit in question but in fact, it is found out that despite having knowledge about the ongoing proceeding, they remained silent till preliminary decree is passed. Since no resistance is filed by the present appellants, the suit is proceeded further and order of decree is passed. Now, in this background, it is required to consider the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC, which reads as under: "13. Setting aside decree ex parte against defendant.--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 day for proceeding with the suit: Provided that where the decree is of such a nature that it cannot be set aside as against such defendant only it may be set aside as against all or any of the other defendants also: Provided further than no Court shall set aside a decree passed ex parte merely on the ground that there has been an irregularity in the service of summons, if it is satisfied that the defendant had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiff's claim. Explanation.--Where there has been an appeal against a decree passed ex parte under this rule, and the appeal has been disposed of an any ground other than the ground that the appellant has withdrawn the appeal, no application shall lie under this rule for setting aside that ex parte decree." 18. It is also relevant to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parimal Vs. It is also relevant to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parimal Vs. Veena @ Bharti reported in (2011) 3 SCC 545 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in Paragraph Nos.10 to 16 as under, “10. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Order IX, R.13 CPC: 11. The aforesaid provisions read as under: "Setting aside decree ex-parte against defendant 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 day for proceeding with the suit; Provided further that no Court shall set aside a decree passed ex-parte merely on the ground that there has been an irregularity in the service of summons, if it is satisfied that the defendant had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiff's claim. (Emphasis added) 12. It is evident from the above that an exparte decree against a defendant has to be set aside if the party satisfies the Court that summons had not been duly served or he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing. However, the court shall not set aside the said decree on mere irregularity in the service of summons or in a case where the defendant had notice of the date and sufficient time to appear in the court. The legislature in its wisdom, made the second proviso, mandatory in nature. Thus, it is not permissible for the court to allow the application in utter disregard of the terms and conditions incorporated in the second proviso herein. 13. "Sufficient Cause" is an expression which has been used in large number of Statutes. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", in as much as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. 13. "Sufficient Cause" is an expression which has been used in large number of Statutes. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", in as much as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, word "sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platitude which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case and duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause" means that party had not acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or the party cannot be alleged to have been "not acting diligently" or "remaining inactive". However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. (Vide: Ramlal & Ors. v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361 ; Sarpanch, Lonand Grampanchayat v. Ramgiri Gosavi & Anr., AIR 1968 SC 222 ; Surinder Singh Sibia v. Vijay Kumar Sood, AIR 1992 SC 1540 ; and Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation & Another, (2010) 5 SCC 459 ) 14. In Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 993 , this Court observed that every good cause is a sufficient cause and must offer an explanation for nonappearance. The only difference between a "good cause" and "sufficient cause" is that the requirement of a good cause is complied with on a lesser degree of proof than that of a "sufficient cause". (See also: Brij Indar Singh v. Lala Kanshi Ram & Ors., AIR 1917 P.C. 156 ; Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. v. Bhutnath Banerjee & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1336 ; and Mata Din v. A. Narayanan, AIR 1970 SC 1953 ). 15. While deciding whether there is a sufficient cause or not, the court must bear in mind the object of doing substantial justice to all the parties concerned and that the technicalities of the law should not prevent the court from doing substantial justice and doing away the illegality perpetuated on the basis of the judgment impugned before it. (Vide: State of Bihar & Ors. (Vide: State of Bihar & Ors. v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Anr., AIR 2000 SC 2306 ; Madanlal v. Shyamlal, AIR 2002 SC 100 ; Davinder Pal Sehgal & Anr. v. M/s. Partap Steel Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 451 ; Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sao & Ors. v. Gobardhan Sao & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 1201 ; Kaushalya Devi v. Prem Chand & Anr. (2005) 10 SCC 127 ; Srei International Finance Ltd., v. Fair growth Financial Services Ltd. & Anr., (2005) 13 SCC 95 ; and Reena Sadh v. Anjana Enterprises, AIR 2008 SC 2054 ). 16. In order to determine the application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC, the test has to be applied is whether the defendant honestly and sincerely intended to remain present when the suit was called on for hearing and did his best to do so. Sufficient cause is thus the cause for which the defendant could not be blamed for his absence. Therefore, the applicant must approach the court with a reasonable defence. Sufficient cause is a question of fact and the court has to exercise its discretion in the varied and special circumstances in the case at hand. There cannot be a straitjacket formula of universal application.” 19. I have also gone through the decisions upon which reliance has been put by the learned advocate for the appellants. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the ratio laid down in the same. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and this being discretionary relief, which requires to be granted judiciously, the said decision would be of no help to the present applicant at this juncture. 20. It is worth noting that learned trial court has to consider only whether there is sufficient cause for the Court to interfere with the findings of the trial court by setting aside the ex-parte decree. In the present case, firstly, it cannot be said that the decree was passed without service of summons or without giving proper opportunity to the parties. Though the opportunity was given, the appellants did not avail it. In the present case, firstly, it cannot be said that the decree was passed without service of summons or without giving proper opportunity to the parties. Though the opportunity was given, the appellants did not avail it. There is nothing on record to indicate that the appellants, at any point in time, issued any notice to the advocate, who represented the case, requesting a proper explanation as to why the written statement was not filed or why contestation was not made in the suit. There is nothing on record, except for a bald assertion in the application before the concerned Court for setting aside the decree that appellants were not aware about the ongoing suit proceedings. The contentions raised in this Appeal From Order will not be helpful to the appellants’ case. Normally, this Court considers that legal proceedings can be decided on merits by giving proper opportunity to the parties. However, in the present case, when no such material is available indicating that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause from contesting the suit on merits, the Court should not exercise its powers under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC to set aside the ex-parte decree. Therefore, the findings in the judgment and order passed by the learned trial court are correct and in accordance with the materials available on record and also in accordance with the law. I find no perversity or illegality in the findings given by the learned court concerned while deciding the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC by exercising its discretion and it is also found that the discretion used by the learned Judge is in judicious manner. Therefore, no interference is required to be called for by this Court. 21. Accordingly, the present Appeal from Order is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Connected civil application also stands disposed of accordingly.