Concealment of Prior Knowledge of Suit Vitiates "Good Cause" For Setting Aside Ex-Parte Proceedings

The respondents (plaintiffs) filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent arrears/damages against the revisionists (defendants) before the SCC Court, Rudrapur

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants failed to vacate the industrial premises after the lease expired and sublet the property without consent

On 21.01.2026, the Trial Court proceeded ex-parte as the defendants failed to appear despite service

The defendants subsequently filed an application (No. 21C) under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC on 18.03.2026 to set aside the ex-parte order, claiming they only gained knowledge of the suit on 17.03.2026

The Trial Court dismissed this application on 01.04.2026, leading to the present revision

1. Whether the revisionists established "good cause" for their non-appearance to justify setting aside the ex-parte proceedings under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC

2. Whether the revisionists' claim regarding the date of knowledge of the suit (17.03.2026) was truthful or a material concealment of facts

The court primarily applied Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which empowers a court to set aside ex-parte proceedings if the defendant assigns "good cause" for previous non-appearance

It further relied on the equitable principle that a party seeking relief must approach the court with "clean hands" and disclose true facts, as established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various precedents

The High Court scrutinized the revisionists' claim of late knowledge. It found that the revisionists had actually filed an application before the SDM, Bajpur on 25.01.2026, which explicitly mentioned the pendency of "SCC Suit No. 13 of 2025" for eviction and rent recovery

This letter, drafted by the same partner/authorized representative, directly contradicted the affidavit filed under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, which falsely stated they only learned of the suit on 17.03.2026

The Court noted that summons were duly served on the firm on 19.05.2025 and on other partners via an authorized employee on 19.11.2025

Consequently, the Court held that the revisionists intentionally chose not to appear despite being fully aware of the proceedings

The Court affirmed the Trial Court's order, ruling that the power under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC cannot be exercised in favor of a defendant who suppresses facts and willfully avoids appearance while being fully aware of the suit

All pending miscellaneous applications were closed