ORDER : Mr. Sangeet Lodha, J. 1. This petition is directed against order dated 5.1.16 passed by the Additional District Judge, Parbatsar in Case No. 68/05, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner under Order 9, Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC, has been dismissed. 2. The facts relevant are that the respondent filed an application under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act") seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. The application was being contested by the petitioner herein by filing a reply thereto. The reply filed on behalf of the petitioner was taken on record on 6.10.15 and the matter was adjourned to 8.12.15 for framing of issues. On 8.12.15, the trial court framed the issues but since nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner, the matter was proceeded ex parte against him. On the next date of hearing i.e. 5.1.16 an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC for setting aside the ex parte proceedings. On the same day, the application was rejected by the trial court observing that no good cause is assigned by the petitioner herein for his previous non appearance. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the court below has seriously erred in observing that no explanation or reason for non appearance of the petitioner or his counsel on the date fixed is assigned. Learned counsel submitted that it was specifically pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that the counsel appearing on his behalf could not appear because he was somewhere else in the court and could not inform the petitioner to attend the date of hearing and thus, ignoring the plausible reason assigned, the court below has seriously erred in rejecting the application preferred. Learned counsel submitted that the matter is at the preliminary stage and therefore, rejection of the application preferred by the court taking the technical view of the matter is not justified. 4. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the application preferred by the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte proceedings was absolutely laconic inasmuch as, no reason whatsoever was assigned for the non appearance on the previous date of hearing. Learned counsel submitted that taking into consideration absence of any justifiable reasons, the court below has committed no error in rejecting the application. 5. Learned counsel submitted that taking into consideration absence of any justifiable reasons, the court below has committed no error in rejecting the application. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 6. Indisputably, on 6.10.15, a reply to the application preferred by the respondent was filed on behalf of the petitioner, which was taken on record and the matter was adjourned to 8.12.15 for framing of the issues. Obviously, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the issues were to be framed by the court and therefore, on account of absence on the part of the petitioner, on the said date, the proceedings before the court was not hampered in any manner. It is true that in the application preferred the reasons for non appearance set out are vague. But then, it is well settled that where the procedural technicalities and the substantial justice are pitted against each other, the later has to be preferred over the former. In the instant case, when the matter was only at the initial stage and the petitioner had filed the application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings without delay on the next date of hearing, in the considered opinion of this court, the trial court was expected to take a lenient view and thus, was not justified in rejecting the application. 7. In this view of the matter, in the interest of justice, the petition preferred by the petitioner deserves to be allowed. 8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The order impugned passed by the Additional District Judge, Parbatsar, rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC is set aside. The application preferred by the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte proceedings is allowed. The order dated 8.12.15 directing proceeding ex parte against the petitioner shall stand set aside, subject to payment of cost Rs. 500/- by the petitioner to the respondent.