Contradictory Pleadings and Dilatory Tactics Preclude Relief Under Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC.

The petitioner, a 77-year-old practicing lawyer, filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an order dated 04.05.2026 passed by the Trial Court.

In the original suit (RCS A/1346/2021), the Trial Court proceeded ex-parte on 13.04.2026 due to the petitioner’s absence.

The petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC on 20.04.2026 to set aside the ex-parte proceedings, claiming he was present on the date of the order but failed to sign/mark attendance due to medical difficulties and procedural ignorance.

The Trial Court dismissed the application, noting that CCTV footage and order sheets contradicted the petitioner’s claims of presence.

1. Whether the petitioner established "good cause" for his previous non-appearance to set aside the ex-parte proceedings under Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC.

2. Whether the Trial Court’s order suffered from perversity or illegality warranting interference under the supervisory jurisdiction of Article 227.

The court applied Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which mandates that a defendant must assign "good cause" for previous non-appearance to be heard in answer to the suit as if he had appeared on the day fixed.

It also exercised the principle of "clean hands" in litigation, requiring litigants to disclose true facts without misleading the court.

The court further applied the standard of "supervisory jurisdiction" under Article 227 of the Constitution, which limits interference to cases of patent illegality or perversity.

The Court observed that the petitioner made mutually exclusive and contradictory statements: while his application before the Trial Court claimed he was physically present on 13.04.2026 but failed to sign the order sheet, his petition before the High Court stated he was absent due to "sudden medical difficulty" and had sent his son instead.

The Court noted that the Trial Court had verified the petitioner’s absence through CCTV footage, proving the petitioner’s claims were false.

As the petitioner is a practicing lawyer, the Court found his conduct of using "dilatory tactics" and making inconsistent statements particularly egregious.

Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner failed to show "good cause" and that the Trial Court’s refusal to condone the absence was neither perverse nor illegal.

The Court answered the issue of "good cause" in the negative, citing the petitioner's attempt to mislead the court.

Due to the petitioner's conduct and inconsistent pleadings, the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 2,500/- to be deposited with the High Court Bar Association, Indore, within seven days.