To set aside an ex-parte order under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, the defendant must show 'good cause'. Litigants, especially legal professionals, who make contradictory averments and mislead the court cannot claim relief, as courts will not assist those who do not come with clean hands.

ORDER

By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for the following reliefs:

"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to Set aside/quash the order dated 04/05/2026 passed by the learned trial Court, and allow the application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC. Direct the learned trial Court to permit the petitioner to appear and contest the suit on the merits. Pass any other order/orders which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. "

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is 70 years old and was pursuing the legal proceedings and sometime his son is also attending the hearing of the present petition. It is submitted that in the suit proceedings bearing RCS A/1346/2021, the petitioner/defendant did not appear and the Court proceeded ex-parte on 13.04.2026. It is further submitted that the petitioner with utmost promptness and without unnecessary delay filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC on 20.04.2026 by praying for setting aside order of ex parte proceedings. The said application is filed within seven days, however, the Court has not considered the same and dismissed the application on 04.05.2026. Therefore, he has submitted that petitioner being a senior citizen and has pursued the proceedings, one more opportunity is required to be granted for participating in proceedings so that he can pursue with the legal remedy, which is already available to him on merit and such hyper technical approach is not required to be taken by the concerned trial Court and prays for interference as now the matter is kept before the trial Court on 06.07.2026, therefore, he prays for interim relief .

4. Learned counsel for the respondents who is appearing on caveat has strongly opposed the same by pointing out that the petitioner himself in his petition in para No.5.3 and 5.4 stated as under:

"5.3 That the petitioner/defendant has appeared in person in the case, and when the matter was listed on 07.04.2026 and 13.04.2026, he was absent due to old age and sudden medical difficulty. The petitioner sent his son, but the trial court did not appreciate his son's presence because he was not a party in the Case.

5.4 Thereafter, when the petitioner/defendant did not appear in the case, he proceeded ex parte on 13.04.2026."

5. Thereafter, he has drawn my attention towards the impugned order whereby, learned trial Court has specifically observed on the last page as under:

"जहां तक ितवाद क ओर सेअपनेआवेदन प मयह बताया गया हैक वह दनांक 13.04.2026 को उपथत था तो तसंबंध मयहांयह उलेखनीय हैक वह दनांक 07.04.2026 एवं 13.04.2026 को अनुपथत था जसक अनुपथित आदेश पका मप प से उलेखत ह। इस कार ितवाद ारा अपनी अनुपथित का कोई कारण भी आवेदन प म उलेखत नहं कया हैतथा यायालय के सम यह आवेदन प तुत कर दनांक 13.04.2026 को अपनी उपथित बतातेहुयेझूठ बोल रहेह। यद ितवाद उ दनांक को उपथत थेतो उनके ारा साय तुत य नहं क गई इसका भी कोई कारण आवेदन प म नहं बताया गया है। यहांयह भी उलेखनीय हैक इस यायालय मकैमरेभी लगे हुयेहउसके बावजूद उनके ारा उ दनांक को इस यायालय मबना कसी डर के अपनी उपथित बताई जा रह है। अतः ितवाद क ओर सेतुत आवेदन प अवीकार कर िनरत कया जाता है।"

6. In his application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC, he has also stated in para 3 as under:

"3- यह क, करण मेितवाद ारा दनांक 13/04/2026 को भी ितवाद माननीय यायालय के सम आवेदन पर समय लेनेके िलए उपथत हुआ था, एवंमाननीय यायालय के सम समय लेनेक ाथन ा क गई थी, परतुितवाद कानूनी कायव ाह क जानकार न होनेके कारण हतार नह कर सका एवं न ह करण क दनांक 13/04/2026 के आदेश पका देख स