ORDER 1. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The petitioner was added as defendant No.4 in the suit proceedings. Summons of the case were served on the son of the petitioner/defendant No.4. Thereafter, case was listed on 21.9.2006 for the presence of defendants. On 21.9.2006, petitioner/defendant No.4 was not present, hence, he was proceeded ex-parte. Thereafter, in the suit proceedings, the written statement was filed, issues were framed, the evidence was recorded and the case was listed for final arguments on 6.4.2010. The arguments were heard and the matter was fixed for pronouncement of the judgment on 7.4.2010. On the aforesaid date, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment. Thereafter, on 19.4.2010, the petitioner filed an application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings against him. He contended in the application that, he had no knowledge about the ex-parte proceeding and on 16.4.2010, he came to know about the ex-parte proceeding when the villagers of the village had been talking about the pendency of the suit. Then, he enquired from the Court and came to know that he had proceeded ex-parte. The plaintiff in reply to the application submitted no objection and he pleaded that the defendant could be permitted to set aside ex-parte proceeding. The learned trial Court rejected the aforesaid application. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the learned trial Court has committed an error of law in rejecting the application. Summons was not served on the petitioner, hence, ex-parte proceeding against the petitioner are liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on the following judgments : 1) 2003 (1) MPLJ 215 (Ramhet and others v. Ajaypal Singh and others) 2) 2003 (3) MPLJ 141 (Archana Kumar and another v. Bhanu Kumar Jain). 3) 1992 (I) MPJ R SN 28 (Mukund Das and another v. State of M.P. & Others); 4) 1982 JLJ SN 40 (R.R. Contractor and Co. v. Indranarayan Mishra) 3. From the facts of the case, it is clear that the Court issued summon for presence of the petitioner. It was served on the son of the petitioner-Mahesh Sharma. Thereafter, the petitioner was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 21.9.2006. v. Indranarayan Mishra) 3. From the facts of the case, it is clear that the Court issued summon for presence of the petitioner. It was served on the son of the petitioner-Mahesh Sharma. Thereafter, the petitioner was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 21.9.2006. The case has been continuing in absence of the petitioner, issues were framed, evidence were recorded and the case was fixed for judgment because arguments were also heard on 6.4.2010. Thereafter, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for permission to amend the plaint and the present petitioner filed an application for setting aside ex-parte proceeding contending that he came to know about the ex-parte proceeding under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC on 16.4.2010. 4. From the facts of the case, we have gathered the impression that the present petitioner had knowledge about the pendency of the case and he has sided with the plaintiff and in order to set aside the suit proceedings he filed an application for setting aside ex-parte proceeding because if the application be allowed, again the issues be framed and another evidence has to be recorded afresh, this has deliberately been done by the defendant in order to obtain the de novo trial from the trial Court because the trial has already been completed and the case was already fixed for judgment. In such circumstances, in our opinion, the trial Court has not committed any error of law in dismissing the application of the petitioner filed under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this petition, it is hereby dismissed.