Petitioner’s Plea for Setting Aside Ex-Parte Proceedings Rejected; Court Imposes Costs for Misleading Conduct
In a recent judgment, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, upheld a trial court's decision to reject an application filed by the petitioner, Divyaprakash, seeking to set aside ex-parte proceedings. The High Court, presided over by Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt, dismissed the petition with costs, emphasizing the need for litigants to approach the court with clean hands and to be truthful in their pleadings.
The case revolved around Divyaprakash, a practicing lawyer, who failed to appear for a court hearing due to claimed medical difficulties and old age. He filed an application under Order 9, Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), requesting the court to set aside the ex-parte proceedings initiated against him. Despite his claims of prompt action in filing the application, the trial court found his reasons for non-appearance unconvincing and dismissed his plea.
In his appeal to the High Court, Divyaprakash argued for another opportunity to contest the suit, citing his status as a senior citizen and asserting that his absence was due to unavoidable circumstances. However, the respondents, led by Advocate Aditya Mishra, highlighted inconsistencies in the petitioner's statements and argued that Divyaprakash was employing dilatory tactics.
The High Court scrutinized the petitioner's conduct and found that he made contradictory statements in his pleadings before both the trial court and the High Court. Justice Bhatt noted that the petitioner misrepresented facts, such as his occupation, and failed to establish a "good cause" for his non-appearance as required under Order 9, Rule 7 of the CPC.
The court emphasized that the judiciary expects litigants to present their cases truthfully and without attempts to mislead the court. Given the petitioner's status as a practicing lawyer, the court was particularly critical of his inconsistent statements and attempts to delay proceedings.
In conclusion, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the trial court's decision, ruling that the trial court's findings were neither perverse nor illegal. The petition was dismissed with a cost of Rs. 2,500, to be deposited in the High Court Bar Association, Indore. This judgment underscores the court's commitment to upholding the integrity of judicial processes and discouraging misuse of the system.
Bottom line:-
Application under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC - Dismissal for lack of "good cause" for previous non-appearance - Petitioner found to have made contradictory averments in pleadings, thereby attempting to mislead the Court - Heavy cost imposed due to improper conduct and misuse of judicial process.
Statutory provision(s): Order 9, Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908; Article 227 of the Constitution of India
Divyaprakash v. Brijesh Kumar, (Madhya Pradesh)(Indore) : Law Finder Doc id # 2935231
