Embedded Files
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 9 Rule 13, “Good cause" and "sufficient cause" if different - Expression "good cause" and "sufficient cause" is not materially different - If no sufficient cause is found under Rule 7, the party may not be entitled to restoration under Section 13.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 9 Rule 13, “Good cause" and "sufficient cause" if different - Expression "good cause" and "sufficient cause" is not materially different - If no sufficient cause is found under Rule 7, the party may not be entitled to restoration under Section 13.
We do not see any material difference between the facts to be established for satisfying the two tests of "good cause" and "sufficient cause". We are unable to conceive of a "good cause" which is not "sufficient" as affording an explanation for non-appearance, nor conversely of a "sufficient cause" which is not a good one and we would add that either of these is not different from "good and sufficient cause" which is used enthuse context in other statutes. If, on the other hand, there is any difference between the two it can only be that the requirement of a "good cause" is complied with on a lesser degree of proof than that of "sufficient cause" and if so, this cannot help the appellant, since assuming the applicability of the principle of res judicata to the decision in the two proceedings, if the Court finds in the first proceeding, the lighter burden not discharged, it must a fortiori bar the consideration of the same matter in the later where the standard of proof of that matter is, if anything, higher.
Dismissal of an application under Rule 7 does not operate as res judicata against an application under Rule 13
Dismissal of an application under Rule 7 does not operate as res judicata against an application under Rule 13
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 9 Rule 13 - Order IX, Rule 7 – Res judicata - Application of - Dismissal of an application under Rule 7 does not operate as res judicata against an application under Rule 13 - A decision or direction in an interlocutory proceeding of the type provided for by Order IX, Rule 7, is not of the kind which can operate as res judicata so as to bar the hearing on the merits of an application under Order IX, Rule 13 - The latter is a specific statutory remedy provided by the Code for the setting aside of ex parte decrees, and it is not without significance that under Order XLIII, Rule 1 (d) an appeal lies not against order setting aside a decree passed ex parte but against orders rejecting such an application unmistakably pointing to the policy of the Code being that subject to securing due diligence on the part of the parties to the suit, the Code as far as possible makes provision for decisions in suits after a hearing afforded to the parties. .
"sufficient cause" means that party had not acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide
"sufficient cause" means that party had not acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide
"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
Report abuse