- (1.)Heard. 1. The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by order dated 22.12.2012 passed by the 15th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in MJC No.80/2012, whereby the application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
(2.)The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant could not participate in the proceedings on account of the fact that he had taken up proceedings to get the agreement impounded for the purposes of paying the necessary stamp duty and in such circumstances his non -appearance before the court below was bonafide which should have been condoned by the court below. It is submitted that in such circumstances the dismissal of the application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC, by the impugned order dated 22.12.2012 deserves to be set aside.
(3.)The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents, who has taken this Court through paras 7 to 9 of the impugned order, wherein the court below has given detailed reasons for dismissal of the application and has recorded a finding that the appellant did not appear before the court inspite of being given several opportunities to do so.