G.P. Srivastava v R.K. Raizada (2000)

CPC & Limitation Act · Execution of Decrees — Modes, Attachment & Sale (ss.36–74, O.21)

Facts.

A defendant against whom an ex-parte decree was passed applied under O.9 r.13 to set it aside, explaining his absence.

Issue.

How should “sufficient cause” for non-appearance under O.9 r.13 be construed?

Held.

“Sufficient cause” must be construed liberally to advance substantial justice, provided the party was not grossly negligent or lacking in bona fides; the words are given their widest amplitude.

Why it matters.

It is the go-to authority for the remedies-against-ex-parte-decree question.

📄 Full CPC & Limitation Act notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past exam questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · All landmark cases · All CPC & Limitation Act topics