1. Undaunted by un-success in two Courts below, the applicants have filed this civil revison under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 26.4.97, rendered by 12th ADJ, Indore in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 23/95 thereby sustaining the order dated 5.9.95 passed by 4th Civil Judge Class II in MJC No. 9/94.

2. Factual matrix is in a narrow compass: The non-applicants had filed civil suit registered as 49-A/87 in the Court of 4th Civil Judge, Class-II Indore claiming relief of eviction on the ground of bona fide need under section 12 (1) (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, from the tenanted accommodation let at Rs. 200/-per month and for rent/mesne profit, on 2.5.87. The applicants participated in the aforesaid suit till 8.9.1994. On 8.9.94 the evidence of the plaintiff was present but on prayer of the defendants i.e. applicants, the Court adjourned the case to 14.9.94 subject to payment of cost of 100/-. On this date i.e. 14.9.94 the counsel for the non-applicants however pleaded no instruction. The Court thus proceeded ex parte against the applicants. Ex Parte evidence was recorded and the case was adjourned to 22.9.94 for arguments. On 22.9.1994 ex parte judgment and decree were passed. After delivery of the judgment the applicants had filed the application which was rejected as no hearing was left. Thereafter, the applicants filed the application, registered as MJC No. 9/94 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. The cause projected in this application was that the applicants could not remain present on 14.9.94 and could not contact their counsel as they were busy in the treatment of their aunt Smt. Laxmibai. This assertion was disputed by the non-applicants. The Court below rejected the application on conclusion that it was not proved that the applicants were prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing. On un-success, the applicants then preferred misc. appeal. The Court re-appreciated the matter and dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit. Now the revision petition is in this Court.

3. Shri Jain submitted that the provisions of Order IX Rule 13 CPC are not penal and Courts below should have incinerated ex parte decree and reopened lis for biparte adjudication. He has also placed reliance on 1982 MPWN 496 (Pritpal Kaur v. Chhedilal) and has also read some portions from Lord Denning.

4. Shri Joshi contended that despite aforesaid nature of provisions, suitor cannot be kept lugged in the litigation and applicants cannot be permitted to litigate at their will. He urged that aforesaid decision is distinguishable on facts and portions, as read, do not suggest that law should be send on holiday.

5. I proceed to consider the submissions.

6. The scope of interference, as held in AIR 1973 SC 76 (The Managing Director (MIG) v. Ajit Prasad) is little and limited. I find that the trial Court concluded and the appellate Court affirmed, on reasons prima facie proper, that the applicants were not prevented by any sufficient cause to appear on 14.9.1994 when the suit was called on for hearing. Even their counsel reported to the Court on that date that the applicants have not bothered to appear and contact during several dates and that he had no option but to lead 'no instructions', Courts below found no sufficient cause for non appearance on 14.9.1994.

7. Liberal approach does not and cannot mean that erring applicants should have license to disappear or appear at will and to regulate the course of proceedings to suit their comfort or convenience. If the Courts adhere to mandate of law, they cannot be criticised for acting without or in excess of jurisdiction.

8. Law and justice are not distant neighbours and suitor cannot be expected to litigate without prospects of finality in near future. After all, "no instructions" were pleaded after about seven years.

9. If Courts were to accept mere absence as sufficient cause, as is sought to be argued in surge of an urge that provisions a