2021 (4) TMI 1355 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking setting aside of the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 01.02.2019 as well as for seeking condonation of delay of 582 days in filing the application - whether the summons in the suit were duly served or not? - whether the defendant was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called for hearing? - Order IX Rule 13 CPC. HELD THAT - In the present case the defendant was duly served with the summons in the suit and had appeared. Sufficient Cause is an elastic expression and no hard and fast guidelines are prescribed. The Court in its discretion has to consider the sufficient cause in the facts and circumstances of every individual case. Although in interpreting the words sufficient cause the Court has wide discretion but the same has to be exercised in the particular facts of the case - Article 123 of The Limitation Act prescribes that the application for setting aside an ex-parte decree should be filed within thirty days of passing of the decree. In the present case although the defendant has blamed her counsel for his non-appearance which resulted in passing of the decree however a perusal of the judgment dated 01.02.2019 would show that the same was passed after considering the merits of the case. In the opinion of this Court the defendant has failed to show any sufficient cause for its absence in the Court on the material dates. The defendant has also failed to satisfactorily explain the delay of 582 days in filing the captioned application. The explanation given by the defendant is only an eye-wash. This Court is not inclined to accept the explanation provided by the defendant. Consequently the captioned applications are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree, Condonation of delay in filing application.

Analysis:
The defendant sought to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 01.02.2019 and requested condonation of a 582-day delay in filing the application. The suit was filed for permanent injunction against trademark infringement and passing off. The defendant, after being served with summons, filed a written statement but later stopped appearing in court, resulting in the ex-parte judgment. The defendant claimed to have learned of the decree on 18.07.2019 and cited settlement talks with the plaintiffs and personal hardships as reasons for non-appearance.

The defendant's applications were contested by the plaintiffs, who highlighted the defendant's delay in taking action after learning of the decree. The court noted the defendant's reliance on medical documents related to family health issues but found them inadequate to justify the delay. The defendant's counsel's non-appearance was blamed, but the court emphasized the need for the defendant to show "sufficient cause" for both non-appearance and the delay in filing the application.

The court referred to legal precedents emphasizing the importance of "sufficient cause" and the need for defendants to act diligently. The defendant's explanations were deemed insufficient, with the court noting a lack of proactive steps after learning of the decree. The court dismissed the applications, citing the defendant's failure to demonstrate a valid reason for absence and the lengthy delay in filing the application.

In conclusion, the court found the defendant's explanations lacking and dismissed the applications for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree, as well as for condonation of the delay. The court emphasized the importance of showing "sufficient cause" and acting promptly in legal proceedings. The applications were deemed to be an afterthought, and the defendant's reasons for delay were considered insufficient. The court's decision was based on the lack of a justifiable explanation for the defendant's actions and the delay in filing the application.