MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT UPHOLDS EX-PARTE PROCEEDINGS, PENALIZES ADVOCATE FOR CONTRADICTORY PLEADINGS

INDORE: The Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a miscellaneous petition challenging a trial court’s refusal to recall ex-parte proceedings, imposing nominal costs on the petitioner—a 77-year-old practicing advocate—for taking mutually destructive and contradictory factual stands before the courts.

The single-judge bench of Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt observed that while courts generally adopt a liberal and lenient approach under civil procedural law to ensure cases are decided on their merits, such equitable relief cannot be extended to a litigant who fails to approach the court with clean hands or resorts to dilatory tactics.

Background of the Dispute
The matter arose from a civil suit pending before a local trial court, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as a defendant. Following the petitioner's consecutive non-appearance on April 7 and April 13, the trial court passed an order on April 13 directing the suit to proceed ex-parte (in the absence of the defendant).

A week later, on April 20, the petitioner moved an application under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), seeking to set aside the ex-parte order and requesting permission to contest the civil suit on its merits.

Inconsistent Stands Exposure
The primary ground for the rejection of the petitioner’s plea was a stark shift in factual assertions made at different stages of litigation:

• Pleadings Before the Trial Court: In his initial application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC, the petitioner asserted that he was physically present in the courtroom on April 13 to request an adjournment. He claimed that due to a "lack of knowledge of legal procedures," he merely omitted to sign the formal application or verify the court's order sheet, resulting in his absence being erroneously recorded.
• The Trial Court's Finding: On May 4, the trial court rejected the recall plea. The court noted that its formal order sheets clearly recorded the petitioner’s absence. Crucially, the trial court verified the CCTV footage of the court premises for the relevant hours, which conclusively demonstrated that the petitioner was not present on the premises.
• Pleadings Before the High Court: Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner moved the High Court under its supervisory jurisdiction. In his high court pleadings, the petitioner completely abandoned his previous claim of physical presence. Instead, he argued that he was a senior citizen who could not attend the trial court proceedings due to advanced age and a sudden medical emergency.

High Court’s Observations and Ruling
Dismissing the petition, Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt emphasized that a litigant's standard of candor must be absolute, particularly when the litigant is an officer of the court.
The Court noted that the petitioner, being a seasoned, practicing lawyer, could not claim ignorance of legal procedures or expectations. The bench observed:

"Considering the conduct of the petitioner and in view of the fact that the petitioner has made inconsistent statements in the pleadings and also tried to get undue advantage by way of such pleadings, this Court is of the opinion that heavy cost should be imposed on the petitioner, who is otherwise a practicing Lawyer, well aware about all requirement under the law..."
Finding no perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error in the trial court's order, the High Court held that the petitioner completely failed to show "good cause" for his non-appearance as mandated under Order IX Rule 7 CPC.

To discourage the use of conflicting pleadings as a dilatory strategy, the Court dismissed the petition and directed the lawyer to deposit costs of ₹2,500 with the High Court Bar Association, Indore, within seven days.

Case Title: Divyaprakash v. Brijesh Kumar and Others
Bench: Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt
Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate Dheeraj Sharma
Counsel for Respondents: Advocate Aditya Mishra
Discription: This professional news report provides a clear analysis of a recent judgment delivered by the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Structured specifically for legal journalism, the text details the strict procedural consequences that arise when a litigant takes contradictory factual positions before different courts. It tracks a civil dispute from its initial trial court stages to the high court appeal, explaining how a practicing lawyer’s conflicting claims regarding his absence were ultimately exposed through an inspection of court CCTV footage.
The report highlights the application of civil procedure rules governing ex-parte orders and underscores the judiciary’s unwillingness to tolerate dilatory tactics. It serves as an informative case study on the absolute necessity of maintaining candor and professional ethics when presenting pleadings before a court of law.