MAHARAJ SINHA,J. - (1.) There are two applications, GA No.3697 of 2011 and GA No. 3698 of 2011 made by the 2nd and 3rd defendant in the two suits, namely CS No. 58 of 2010 and CS No. 59 of 2010 respectively for setting aside two separate decrees passed ex parte on 23 November 2011 based on identical facts and as such I intend to consider them in this judgment combinedly.
(2.) Admittedly, after the institution of the two suits, the respective writs of summons were served upon all the defendants and there is no dispute with regard to due service of the writs of summons upon the defendants by the plaintiff at all. The only ground on which the two applications are based is that the defendants were prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suits were called on for hearing and the Court passed two ex parte decrees one after the other. In support of this ground, as contained in Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside an ex parte decree, the defendants have made statement in paragraph 4 of the two applications. For the sake of convenience, the said paragraph 4 appearing at page 5 of both the applications are set out below: "4. That Defendants/Applicants submit that after receiving the notice of summons of the said suit they engaged the Ld Advocate Rekha Ghosh by executing a Vakalatnama who entered appearance in the said suit. But thereafter the learned Advocate of the defendants did not take any steps in the said suit on behalf of the defendants/applicants to contest the same. Besides that the said Ld Advocate also could not contact with the defendants/applicants to inform them about the status of the suit. On the other hand the defendant/Applicant no.2 who is a widow lady after executing the Vakalatnama due to illness went to her son at Delhi and since then she is living there, as a result of which she could not contact with her Ld Advocate from Delhi and the Defendant No.3 is aged about 68 years ailing widow lady. And due to her various type of illness she could not move alone here and there for which she also could not contact with her Ld Advocate abovenamed and as such defendants/applicants were not aware of the status of the suit as because they were fully dependant upon their Ld Advocate. That their Ld Advocate will take proper step in the suit by filing written statement to contest the said suit. It is a bonafide mistake on the part of the defendants/applicants and there is no such willful latches and/or lapses on the part of the Defendants/ Applicants in taking proper steps in the suit."
(3.) On a plain reading of the above paragraph, I do think that the same can be taken to be sufficient cause by which the defendants were prevented from appearing on the date the suits were called on for hearing and decreed ex parte. The defendants have provided any particulars of any nature and tried to put the blame on the learned Advocate who was allegedly engaged by the defendants to appear on their behalf for defending the suits.;