JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 31.5.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed the petitioner's application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 20.3.2013 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan whereby the learned Judge has upheld the order dated 31.5.2008 and has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.6.1999, the respondent, Ramji Lal, had filed a civil suit against the petitioner. On 9.5.2005, the petitioner had appeared before the learned trial court and had sought time to engage a counsel of his choice. His counsel submitted his power on 7.7.2005. However, as the petitioner's counsel was absent on 21.2.2007, the learned trial court decided to proceed ex-parte against the petitioner and passed the decree. The petitioner filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC. However, by order dated 31.5.2008, the learned trial court dismissed the said application. Thereafter the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Judge. But by order dated 20.3.2013, the learned Judge has also dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order dated 31.5.2008. Hence, this petition before this court. 3. Relying on the case of G.P. Srivastava v. Shri R.K. Raizada & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 1221 the learned counsel for the petitioner has pleaded that a technical view should not be taken by the learned courts below and in fact, the respondent could have been compensated monetarily by imposing a cost on the petitioner. However, both the learned courts below have taken a hyper-technical view and have rejected the petitioner's application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused both the impugned orders. 5. A bare perusal of the impugned orders clearly reveals that after service of notice upon the petitioner, he had engaged services of a counsel. His counsel had submitted his power on 7.7.2005. Although the petitioner claims that thereafter since one of his relatives had suddenly fallen ill, he had gone to his village. 5. A bare perusal of the impugned orders clearly reveals that after service of notice upon the petitioner, he had engaged services of a counsel. His counsel had submitted his power on 7.7.2005. Although the petitioner claims that thereafter since one of his relatives had suddenly fallen ill, he had gone to his village. But both the learned courts below have noticed the fact that in his cross-examination, the petitioner did admit that except for staying in his village for two to three days in a month, most of the time he was very much present in Jaipur itself. Moreover, both the learned courts below have noticed the fact that the petitioner did not give any detail about the relative who had fallen ill, the nature of his illness and why he had to stay in the village to look after him. Furthermore, both the courts below have noticed the fact that during his stay in Jaipur, the petitioner has never inquired from his counsel as to the progress of the trial. It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that a litigant who is slack about pursuing his own interests and rights cannot expect a court to rush to his rescue. Therefore, both the courts below were certainly justified in rejecting his application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC. 6. The case of G.P. Srivastava (supra) is distinguishable on the basis of facts itself. In the said case, the appellant had lost his nephew on the very date of hearing and could not attend the hearing. However, no such tragedy had stuck to the petitioner. Moreover, since the petitioner was very much available in Jaipur where the case was going on, there is no cogent or convincing reason for not contacting his counsel and for inquiring about the case. Therefore, the case of G.P. Srivastava (supra) does not buttress the plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. For the reasons stated above, this court does not find any illegality or perversity in both the impugned orders. This petition being devoid of any merit, is hereby, dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******