JUDGMENT Suneet Kumar, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The defendant-applicants have approached this Court assailing the orders, passed by the courts below rejecting the application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC. 3. A suit before the Judge Small Causes, Aligarh was instituted for eviction, arrears of rent and deformation of the suit property, the defendant nos. 1 to 4 put in appearance, whereas defendant No. 5 to 9 did not participate in the proceedings, on 21 August 2008, the court of first instance directed to proceed ex parte, aggrieved, the applicants moved an application under Order 9, Rule 9 C.P.C for recalling of ex parte order to proceed ex parte which was allowed with cost of L 400/-, thereafter the applicant neither deposited the cost but also avoided the court proceedings, consequently, the trial court on 16 September 2010 recalled the earlier order dated 21 August 2008, thus the suit was directed to proceed ex parte again. Thereafter, dates were fixed on 30 October 2010, 25 November 2010, 23 December 2010, 19 January 2011, 24 February 2011, 9 March 2011, 20 March 2011, 11 April 2011, 27 April 2011, 5 May 2011, 19 May 2011, 15 July 2011, 17 August 2011, 9 September 2011, 20 September 2011 and 17 October 2011, however, the applicant did not appear, finally the suit was decreed ex parte on 22 October 2011. 4. In an application moved under Order 9, Rule 13 to recall the ex parte decree it was stated that the applicant met with an accident, was falsely implicated in a criminal case by the respondent, as such he could not attend the proceedings. The courts below upon considering the material and evidence on record returned a concurrent finding of fact that the applicant failed to substantiate medical treatment, no documents were filed nor it was stated as to when the applicant met with the accident, whether the applicant was hospitalized; it was not stated that pursuant to criminal proceedings, whether the applicants were detained. The courts below noted that contradictory and false stand was taken to mislead the court. In these circumstances, the application was rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant before this Court has sought to press the same fact but has failed to show any illegality, infirmity or perversity, neither sufficient cause has been shown for not appearing in the proceedings. 6. In these circumstances, the application was rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant before this Court has sought to press the same fact but has failed to show any illegality, infirmity or perversity, neither sufficient cause has been shown for not appearing in the proceedings. 6. In the facts of the case, I do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned orders. 7. The petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. 8. No order as to costs. Petition accordingly dismissed.