JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, Member - This is a second appeal against the judgment dated July 9, 1974 of the learned Additional Commissioner by which he rejected the appeal and upheld the order of the trial court dated February 16, 1973. 2. Heard the learned counsels and perused the file. 3. The facts of the case are that suit under section 209 of U.P. Act I of 1951 was pending in the trial court. The evidence of the plaintiff was closed and then the date was given for the evidence of the defendant. The defendant could not produce the evidence on the next date and he sought an adjournment. That adjournment was allowed on September 2, 1972 on the payment of cost Rs. 10/- and September 16, 1972 was the next date fixed for the evidence of the defendant. It so happened that on September 16, 1972 again defendant did not appear hence the following order was passed. "Vadi Apne Vidman Vakil key sath upasthit hai. Prativadi an-upasthit hai. Atah Vad ektarfa sunajayega. September 23, 1972 ko Adesh-anth Sthagit." On September 23, 1972 the decree was passed. 4. On September 23, 1972 an application was filed by the defendant-revisionist to set aside the ex-parte decree dated September 23, 1972. That application was rejected by the trial court by its order dated February 16, 1973. An appeal was filed against this order, appeal was also dismissed by the learned Additional commissioner's order dated July 9, 1974. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree was moved on that very day and it was accompanied by an affidavit, hence it has been wrongly disbelieved by the trial court and the application was rejected without any sufficient ground. He has further contended that the same mistake can be committed by the counsel or the client again and it should not be rejected on the ground because such mistake has already been committed. He has also contended that on September 16, 1972 the court should have adjourned the case for hearing ex-parte under order 9, Rule 6 of the C.P.C. but it has not been done so and the case was heard and next date was fixed for delivery of judgment. 6. He has also contended that on September 16, 1972 the court should have adjourned the case for hearing ex-parte under order 9, Rule 6 of the C.P.C. but it has not been done so and the case was heard and next date was fixed for delivery of judgment. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the application has rightly been rejected because of the date was fixed on the application of the defendant and the defendants have full knowledge about the date hence the ex-parte decree cannot be set aside under Order 9, Rule 13 proviso(ii). He has further contended that both the courts below have given concurrent finding of facts that inspite of knowledge the defendant did not come on the date fixed hence the court had no other option except to pass an ex-parte decree. The grounds shown by the applicant has not been accepted sufficient by both the courts below. Hence interference at this stage is not required. 7. This is a case under Section 209 of U.P. Act I of 1951. The date was given on the application of the defendant-appellant. Previously the defendant had field an application on the ground that due to mistake in nothing the date he could not appear earlier and that application was allowed on September 20, 1972 on payment of cost and then September 16, 1972 was fixed. Again on September 16, 1972 the defendant did not turn upon and the case was adjourned for September 28, 1972. On September 23, 1972 again the same plea was taken and an application was filed on that very date to set aside the ex-parte order. No doubt the application has been given on that very day and the person and the person is not prohibited from committing the same mistake; but such mistake is to be excused if it is a mistake only. On the other hand, it cannot be excused if it is intentional and just to linger on the proceedings; in a case under Section 209 of Act I of 1951 this can be done. The principles for allowing the uncontroverted contents of the affidavit, for deciding case on merits, generally are to be followed to achieve justice. But in the name of justice only one party's point of view is not to be considered but justice should be done to both the parties. The principles for allowing the uncontroverted contents of the affidavit, for deciding case on merits, generally are to be followed to achieve justice. But in the name of justice only one party's point of view is not to be considered but justice should be done to both the parties. Who seeks equity must come with clean hands. In this case the question of irregularity in notice does not arise, once that point is not to be discussed because the date was given on the application of the defendant-appellant himself. So far as Order 9 Rule 6 of C.P.C. is concerned, the case was not decided on that date but was adjourned for the next date and then ex-parte decree was passed. Both the courts below have held that the appellant had intentionally avoided to appear on the date fixed and just waited for an order and then again filed in application. This finding cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the application was filed on that very day or the affidavit was uncontroverted, because the court is not bound to accept whatever it is alleged by a party; it has to exercise its own discretion and that discretion must be exercised judicially and it was done so by both the courts below. Hence in the name of justice gross injustice would be done if the contention of the appellant is accepted. 8. I, therefore see no force in the second appeal and it is dismissed with costs.