THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.368 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The appellant filed O.S.No.10 of 2001 for recovery of a sum of RS.9,10,800/- towards the cost of cotton said to have been supplied by him to the respondents. The trial of the suit could not progress for the past several years on account of the dispute in relation to the payment of stamp duty on the document. The suit was dismissed for default on 22.08.2007. The appellant filed I.A.No.710 of 2007 under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the said order. He pleaded that he suffered ill-health form 19.08.2007 till 04.09.2007 and in that view of the matter, he could not appear before the Court. The application was resisted by the respondents. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. through order, dated 10.02.010. The same is challenged in this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the suit was dismissed on account of inevitable absence on the part of the appellant and the trial Court ought to have shown indulgence. He contends that not only Ex.P.1, certificate issued by the Doctor, was placed before the trial Court but also the Doctor himself was examined as P.W.1. Learned counsel submits that the trial Court took note of minor discrepancies in the evidence and dismissed the I.A., and that the appellant deserves to be given an opportunity to pursue the matter. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that for all practical purposes, the appellant has taken the trial Court for granted and stated several things, which are totally inconsistent with each other. He contends that in the affidavit filed before the trial Court in support of the I.A., it was pleaded that the appellant underwent treatment as inpatient between 19.08.2007 and 04.09.2007, whereas the contents of Ex.P.1 and the evidence of P.W.1 are totally at variance. He submits that even if there was any impediment for the appellant to appear before the Court on 22.08.2007, no explanation was offered as to why there was no representation by his counsel. Normally, the civil Courts as well as this Court would be liberal in dealing with the applications filed under Rule 9 of Order 9 C.P.C. In case, the orders dismissing the suit for default or ex parte decree come into existence, on account of any accidental omission, indulgence would be shown and the parties would be given a chance to pursue the matter on merits. However, the parties seeking such a relief must be truthful in their statements before the Court. In the instant case, for one reason or the other, the trial could not commence for about 7 years from the date of filing of the suit. Ultimately, it was coming up for the evidence of P.W.1. Even if for any reason, the appellant was prevented from attending the Court on the stipulated date, an application ought to have been filed or at least a representation should have been made. No such thing has taken place. The petitioner stated in his affidavit that he suffered from Typhoid fever and underwent treatment as in patient at Jaya Hospital, Chilakaluripet between 19.08.2007 and 04.09.2007. However, Ex.P.1 filed in support of the application is to the effect that the appellant was treated as outpatient. Added to that, even if there existed some scope for showing indulgence, the same was virtually made to disappear by examining P.W.1. The very suggestion made to P.W.1 by the appellant herein in chief examination was that he was treated as out patient from 19.08.2007 to 04.09.2007. This totally contradicts the version put forth in the affidavit. In the cross examination, P.W.1 stated that he maintains an outpatient register also. However, he admitted that he did not enter the name of the appellant in the register. The net result is that the only ground pleaded by the appellant for not appearing before the Court stood proved to be false. The trial Court took note of the same and dismissed the I.A and this Court is not inclined to take a different view. The C.M.A. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 13.08.2010 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.368 of 2010 Date: 13.08.2010 JSU