HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A. NO. 145 OF 2009 Between: M/s Deepti Engineers , 105 first floor, Hariganga Complex and one another .....Appellants AND M/s Greaves Cotton Limied, 6-2-47, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad represented by its Senior Branch Manager .....RESPONDENT JUDGMENT : (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED ) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 6.12.2008 passed in I.A.No. 408 of 2008 in O.S.No. 150 of 2000 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge-cum-Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad. Defendants are the appellants. Respondent- plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs. 40,00,000/- on the basis of invoices for supplying the goods. The suit was decreed ex-parte for non appearance of the defendants on 26.6.2007. Hence, defendants filed I.A.No. 408 of 2008 under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC to set aside the ex parte decree passed on 26.6.2007 stating that he suffered from ill health and it resulted in collapse of business and disharmony among the family members. The averments made in the affidavit were disbelieved by the Court below which dismissed the IA, as the defendants have not filed any medical proof or document for the period of ill health. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the Court below ought to have seen that a substantive right of the appellants is being defeated if an opportunity is not afforded to him by setting aside the ex parte decree. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and perused the material made available on record. As seen from the record, the Suit i.e., O.S.No. 150 of 2000 was decreed ex parte on 26.6.2007 for non appearance of the defendants and the defendants filed I.A.No. 408 of 2008 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree passed on 26.6.2007 and the same was dismissed by the Court below. For ready reference Order IX Rule 13 CPC reads as under: “Order IX Rule 13: Setting aside decree exparte against defendant: In any case in which a decree is passed exparte against a de4fendant, he may apply to the court by which the decree was passed for orders 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 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 if may be set aside as against all or any of the other defendants also: Provided further that no court shall set aside a decree passed exparte 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.” A perusal of the said provision clearly demonstrates that the appellants have to show sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the Court. The Court has to satisfy with regard to the reasons offered for setting aside the exparte decree. In this Case the reasons offered by the appellants herein were not believed by the Court below and therefore, dismissed the application filed by them to set aside the exparte decree. Be that as it may, the suit was filed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- and the same was decreed exparte. Therefore, in our considered view, the matter requires to be adjudicated on merits. The suit was of the year 2006 and the exparte decree was passed in the year 2007. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order passed by the Court below in I.A.No. 408 of 2008 in O.S.No. 150 of 2006 on condition of the appellants depositing 50% of the suit amount, within a period of six weeks from today and on such deposit, the respondent is permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. The Court below is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law subject to compliance of the order passed by this Court. Failing which, the order passed by the Court below shall automatically stand confirmed. Accordingly, CMA is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY,J DATE: 05.10.2010 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.