The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a practising advocate seeking to set aside an order proceeding against him ex parte in a civil suit, holding that a lawyer cannot claim ignorance of legal procedure or seek to mislead the Court through contradictory pleadings. The Court also imposed costs of ₹2,500 on the petitioner.
Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt was hearing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging a trial court’s refusal to allow the petitioner to participate in the suit after he was proceeded against ex parte under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner claimed that, owing to old age and sudden medical difficulties, he could not appear before the trial court and sought restoration of his right to contest the proceedings.
Also Read Supreme Court Declines to Stay Sonam Raghuvanshi’s Bail; Seeks Response on State’s Challenge
The respondents opposed the plea, pointing out that the petitioner had taken inconsistent stands before the trial court and the High Court regarding his absence. They further submitted that although the petitioner described his occupation as insurance service in an affidavit, he was in fact a practising lawyer and had earlier adopted dilatory tactics, including filing transfer proceedings based on incorrect averments.
Refusing to interfere with the trial court’s order, the High Court observed that Order IX Rule 7 CPC requires a litigant to establish good cause for previous non-appearance. The Court found that the petitioner had failed to satisfy this requirement and had instead made contradictory averments before different courts, attempting to confuse or mislead the judicial process.
The Court emphasised that while courts ordinarily adopt a liberal approach in applications under Order IX Rule 7 CPC, such indulgence cannot be extended where a practising advocate makes inconsistent statements and seeks to obtain an undue advantage. It held that litigants are expected to approach the court with clean hands by making true and complete disclosures.
Also Read Delhi High Court Shields Sony’s Cricket Broadcasts, Orders Immediate Block on Rogue Streaming Sites
Observing that the petitioner, being a practising lawyer, was fully aware of the legal requirements and could not be treated as an illiterate person lacking knowledge of law, the Court dismissed the petition and directed him to deposit costs of ₹2,500 with the High Court Bar Association, Indore within seven days.
