Sheena Sakhuja vs Smt. Swaonil Sakhuja on 25 February, 2026

1 MP-6710-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 25th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 6710 of 2025
SHEENA SAKHUJA
Versus
SMT. SWAONIL SAKHUJA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Samarth Shrivastava - Advocate for petitioner.
WITH
MISC. APPEAL No. 2816 of 2025
SWAPNIL ALIAS ANJU SAKHUJA AND OTHERS
Versus
KU. SHEENA SAKHUJA
Appearance:
Shri Nitin Agrawal - Advocate for appellants.
Shri Samarth Shrivastava - Advocate for respondent.

ORDER

Since both these cases arise out of the same subject matter, therefore,

they are being decided by this common order.

2. M.A. No. 2816/2025 has been filed arising out of the order passed by the trial Court, whereby the trial Court has rejected application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and refused to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 05.04.2023.

3. M.P. No.6710/2025 has been filed by the decree holder of the said ex- parte decree seeking expeditious disposal of the execution petition for

2 MP-6710-2025 execution of the said decree.

4. The present case is between mother and her daughters. The mother and younger daughter are on one side as Defendants while the elder daughter is on the other side as Plaintiff. The matter relates to succession and partition of property upon death of deceased father of the plaintiff, who expired untimely in road accident on 30.07.2012. Upon his death, there were disputes between the parties and ultimately a civil suit was filed by the plaintiff who is the elder daughter, against her mother and younger sister seeking share in various properties left by her father and in the said suit the mother and younger daughter were declared ex-parte after some time and the suit was decreed on 05.04.2023 to the extent that in one property, which was in the

name of father of plaintiff, 1/3rd share was declared, in another property in

which the father and mother were joint owners, 1/6th share was declared and in a third property which was in the name of mother i.e. defendant No.1, no share was declared. Apart from that, for all the movable properties like Bank

deposits, 1/3rd share was declared, including that of Bank locker.

5. The mother and younger daughter filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex-parte decree that was dismissed by the trial Court on 28.01.2025 against which M.A. No.2816/2025 has been filed before this Court.

6. Before proceeding to deal with the case on merits, it is appropriate to mention that on 11.12.2025, when this Court heard the matter for some time, then it appeared that some settlement can be explored between the parties and for that purpose, this Court had appointed a Mediator and directed the

3 MP-6710-2025 parties to appear before the Mediator on 05.01.2026. However, though the plaintiff i.e. elder daughter appeared before the Mediator as well as the defendant No.1 who is her mother also appeared before the Mediator, but mediation proceedings could not succeed and a failure report has been filed before this Court.

7. Today, the matter was heard by this Court at length in pre-lunch session and then it appeared appropriate to this Court to interact with the parties personally before proceeding to decide the case on merits to explore any possibility of settlement or compromise and in post-lunch session, the plaintiff i.e. elder daughter and the defendant No.1 i.e. mother were present in person. The defendant No.1 (mother) stated that she has no problem with the decree but she only wants one modification that whatever articles are found in the locker, out of those, the "ornaments" are her Stridhan and she should get the exclusive ownership of the ornaments in the locker, whereas all other articles in the locker may be divided equally between the three parties.

8. The said prayer was contested by the plaintiff i.e. elder daughter by contending that whatever ornaments or any other article is left in the locker,

are all properties of her deceased father and she would have 1/3rd share in everything. It was contended by her that for some of the properties the suit has been dismissed and in case the suit is restored, then the suit may possibly be decreed for the third property also and the defendant No.1 i.e. mother should be thankful that presently the suit has been dismissed some properties

and she should not stress on the Stridhan part.

4 MP-6710-2025

9. After interacting with the parties, it appeared to this Court that the parties are not willing to budge from their respective stands and, therefore, this case is being decided on merits.

10. The suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking share in various properties and the suit has been decreed in part as already observed above. The judgement and decree was passed on 05.04.2023 and application for setting aside decree was filed before the trial Court on 20.08.2024.

11. It was contended by the defendants No.1 and 2 in their application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC that since the suit was between daughters and mother, therefore, to some extent, there was some trust between the parties. It was contended in the application that in the suit on number of times possibility of compromise was expressed and even mediation was carried out which remained unsuccessful in the year 2016 and, therefore, on 19.02.2018 both the parties again expressed possibility for compromise and in the meantime there was some out of Court oral compromise between the parties and the plaintiff i.e. elder daughter had assured the defendants No.1 and 2 being mother and the younger daughter that since she has got compassionate appointment in place of her father who was in government service, therefore, now she would not take any further share in the properties and would get the suit withdrawn and, therefore, under that impression the defendants No.1 and 2 did not further appear in the suit. In sum and substance, it was the assertion of the defendants No.1 and 2 that upon an impression given by the plaintiff elder daughter that she is going to withdraw the suit, they did not appear in the suit further.

5 MP-6710-2025

12. It is not in dispute between the parties that at the time when the suit had been filed and for the entire time when the suit was being prosecuted before the trial Court, the parties were residing in the same house and they were jointly residing in the same house. Though it is admitted that recently the mother and younger daughter have gone to reside in another house of the family but at the time when the suit was being prosecuted, all the parties were residing in the same house.

13. It was further contended in the application that it was only in the year 2024 when the elder daughter threatened the mother and younger daughter i.e. the defendant Nos.1 and 2 that now she has a decree of Court for partition in her favour that defendants No.1 and 2 had any inkling that there is an adverse order against them and then they enquired in the matter and have got the application for setting aside ex-parte decree filed before the Court.

14. This Court has gone through the evidence recorded before the trial Court in proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The defendant No.1 had stated in her deposition that her daughter had told in year 2017-2018 that there has been a compromise and being led by a false promise by the elder daughter/plaintiff, she and her younger daughter did not appear in the suit. She further stated in paragraph 6 of her deposition that the counsel was not in touch with the defendants No.1 and 2 and she was relying on her elder daughter who was plaintiff because the parties were residing in the same house together with each other and she had relied on the oral assertion of the elder daughter being plaintiff.

15. The plaintiff was also examined before the trial Court in proceedings

6 MP-6710-2025 under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and she admitted that she is residing in the same house along with her mother. It was stated by her that she got compassionate appointment in the Department of Rural Engineering Services of the State Government and while working in the said Department, she obtained the higher education of Bachelor of Engineering (Information Technology). She denied that there was any out of Court settlement between her and her mother. A suggestion was given to her that during Covid-19 lockdown periods since the parties resided in the home, therefore, the relations became better, that she denied.

16. This Court has also gone through the order-sheets of the trial Court during the course of proceedings of the suit. On 11.05.2018 a possibility of compromise was expressed by both the parties and on 08.02.2019, the defendants No.1 and 2 were declared ex-parte and on 23.04.2019, they appeared again but did not file any application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC because in the intervening period, no further adverse proceedings had taken place and their written statement was already on record before being declared ex-parte. Thereafter, on 20.08.2019, application for temporary injunction was rejected and on 28.08.2019, issues were framed and on this date, the possibility of compromise was denied by counsel for both the parties.

17. Thereafter, there were Covid-19 intermittent lockdown periods in the years 2020, 2021 and 2022, during which time, sometimes both the parties

appeared, sometimes none of the parties appeared, some times one of the parties appeared, and sometimes the dates were adjourned because the Courts were working only for limited purpose.

7 MP-6710-2025

18. The counsel for defendants No.1 and 2 last appeared before the trial Court on 29.09.2021 and on 04.03.2022, the defendants No.1 and 2 were declared ex-parte and ultimately, the ex-parte judgment and decree was passed on 05.04.2023.

19. The aforesaid order-sheets do indicate that some possibilities of compromise were being explored between the parties and it is the categoric assertion of petitioners before this Court who were defendants No.1 and 2 that they were led by false promise of the plaintiff who was elder daughter of defendant No.1 that she would get the suit withdrawn and being led by the false promise, they did not appear in the suit.

20. For the purpose of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, sufficient cause has to be seen and sufficient cause in each case is a question of fact and has to be interpreted liberally. It cannot be bound by hard and fast rules and in each case, it has to be interpreted and construed differently because one cause may be sufficient in one case but it may not be sufficient in another case.

21. The identical question wherein in a suit between close relatives i.e. husband and wife, the promise given by one party to the other that the suit would be withdrawn when the compromise talks were taking place, was considered by the High Court of Uttarakhand in the case of Seema Gupta vs. Manoj Kumar reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Utt 724 . The Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand held as under:-

"By this appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the appellant seeks to challenge the order dated 12.12.2017, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in Misc. Case No. 13 of 2017 "Smt. Seema Gupta v. Manoj Kumar", whereby, the application filed by the appellant, under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to seek setting aside of the ex-parte Judgment and Decree dated 08.11.2016, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in Original Suit No.

8 MP-6710-2025 529 of 2014 "Manoj Kumar v. Smt. Seema Gupta", is dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the parties were married to each other on 10.02.2003 and out of this wedlock a son was born, now aged about 16 years and is residing with his mother. Disputes between the parties arose and the husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the said petition, the wife/appellant appeared on 07.10.2015 but after that she did not appear in that case. Therefore, an ex-parte proceeding was drawn against her. The husband filed his own affidavit in the ex-parte evidence. After hearing the arguments of the husband, the ex-parte judgment and decree was passed on 08.11.2016. In order to setting aside the said ex-parte judgment and decree, an application was moved by the appellant, which was dismissed on 12.12.2017. Hence, this appeal.

3 . Heard Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent. 4 . The appellant submits that after her appearance in the original suit, during mediation at Haridwar, the respondent/petitioner took appellant and her brother in the belief that he would get his petition dismissed and stay happily in Haridwar.

5 . Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appeal, filed by the appellant, is not bona fide but he has not rebutted the appellant's statement that during mediation at Haridwar, the respondent/petitioner took the appellant and her brother in the belief that he would get his petition dismiss and stay happily in Haridwar.

6. The provision of Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 envisages two different situations. It provides for setting aside of ex-parte decree where summons have not been duly served on the defendant or where he is prevented by the sufficient cause from appearing when the suit is taken up for hearing.

7. It is well settled that "sufficient cause" in each case is a question of fact and it should be interpreted liberally. Court in considering whether a party has established sufficient cause, need not be overstrict. What constitute "sufficient cause" cannot be laid down by hard and fast rules. In Civil Appeal No. 4669 of 2019 Bhivchandra Shankar More v. Balu Gangaram More, the Hon'ble Apex Court on 07.05.2019, has held in para No. 15, "It is fairly well settled law that "sufficient cause" should be given liberal construction so as to advance sustainable justice when there is no inaction, no negligence nor want of bona fide could be imputable to the appellant. 8 . A valid marriage has the sanctity of law as well as of the society. A decree for dissolution of marriage by a competent court being a judgment affecting status is a judgment in rem. Therefore, when such serious question arises, the court will have to be very cautious and vigilant in adjudication upon the matter.

9 . In Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum, AIR 1958 SC 886, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that when the suit involves the question of marital status of the parties, the Court should be extremely vigilant.

10. Taking into consideration totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the appellant has given sufficient explanation for her non- appearance before the Family Court. According to us, the unrebutted explanations offered by the appellant are bonafide and deserve to be

9 MP-6710-2025 accepted. Its non-acceptance by the court below does not seem to be justified.

11. Therefore, in the extraordinary and peculiar circumstances of the case, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 12.12.2017, passed in Misc. Case No. 13 of 2017 "Smt. Seema Gupta v. Manoj Gupta", dismissing the appellant's application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is set aside. The application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C., filed by the appellant, is accepted and the ex-parte Judgment and Decree dated 08.11.2016, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in Original Suit No. 529 of 2014 "Manoj Kumar v. Smt. Seema Gupta" is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Family Court concerned. The parties are directed to appear on 10.11.2020 before the court concerned."

22. The Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand held that false promises given by one close relative to another that the case would be withdrawn upon compromise, can be a sufficient cause in appropriate case and the present case also falls within the same category. It is not in dispute that both the parties were residing in the same house when the suit was being proceeded and compromise talks were going on during pendency of the suit and in such circumstances, the mother and younger daughter having stopped appearing before the trial Court and then stating that they were led by false promise of the plaintiff who was elder daughter that she is going to withdraw the suit, cannot be utterly disbelieved by the Court. Therefore, it appears that there is sufficient cause which warrants the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to be allowed.

23. Resultantly, the present appeal (M.A. No.2816/2025) is allowed. The impugned order of the trial Court dated 28.01.2025 as well as the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 05.04.2023 are set aside.

24. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 23.03.2026 and on such other further dates as may be directed by the trial Court in that regard.

10 MP-6710-2025

25. So far as M.P. No.6710/2525 is concerned, since the ex-parte decree has been set aside by this Court in M.A. No.2816/2025, therefore, nothing survives for adjudication in this miscellaneous petition which is for expediting the executing proceedings. It is, therefore, dismissed as infructuous.

(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE

psm