Kaushalya Devi v. Prem Chand

Facts

• A suit was pending in court
• On the date of hearing, the defendant's advocate failed to appear without informing the defendant (client)
• The defendant had no knowledge that the advocate would not appear and had no reason to anticipate the default
• The court proceeded ex parte and passed a decree against the defendant
• The defendant applied under Order IX Rule 13 to set aside the ex parte decree, citing the advocate's default as sufficient cause

Issue

1. Whether default by an advocate (without the client's knowledge) constitutes "sufficient cause" for the client's non-appearance under Order IX Rule 13.

Held

• Where an advocate fails to appear without informing the client, and the client had no knowledge of the non-appearance, the absence is not wilful on the client's part
• The advocate's default may constitute "sufficient cause" for the client's absence
• The client should not be made to suffer the consequences of the advocate's negligence when the client acted bona fide
• The ex parte decree was set aside

Ratio Decidendi

An advocate's unexplained default, where the client had no knowledge and no reason to anticipate it, may constitute sufficient cause for the client's absence. The client should not bear adverse consequences of the advocate's negligence if the client is otherwise bona fide.