JUDGMENT Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral): CM APPL. 39921/2023 (for exemption) Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the present application stand disposed of. CM(M) 1245/2023 1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the orders dated 03.04.2023, 16.07.2022 and 19.02.2022 passed by the ADJ-09, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (`Trial Court'), in civil suit no. 15766/2016, titled as ` Sube Singh v. Lakhami Chand '. 1.1. The Trial Court vide impugned order dated 03.04.2023 has dismissed the application dated 17.12.2022 filed by the Petitioners herein under Order 9 Rule 7 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC'), for setting aside of the ex- parte order dated 19.02.2022. 1.2. The Trial Court vide order dated 16.07.2022 has accepted the objections filed by Respondent (i.e., the plaintiff) to the report of the Local Commissioner and passed directions with respect to division of the suit properties between the plaintiff and the defendant. 1.3. The Trial Court vide order dated 19.02.2022 has proceeded ex-parte against the legal heirs of the original defendant (i.e., the Petitioners herein). 2. The learned counsel for the Petitioners states that the Petitioners herein are two (2) of the legal heirs of late Mr. Lakhmi Chand i.e., the original defendant in the civil suit for partition. 2.1. He states that after the death of late Mr. Lakhmi Chand, the application for bringing on record his eight (8) legal representatives was allowed by the Trial Court on 08.08.2018. He states that, however, after impleading the legal heirs no summons were issued by the Trial Court. He states that neither at the stage adjudication of application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC nor after the legal heirs were brought on record, any notice was issued by the Trial Court. He states that in these circumstances, the Petitioner herein were not aware that the proceedings before the Trial Court were continuing. 2.2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner fairly concedes that the plea that no notice was issued to the legal heirs after they were brought on record 08.08.2018, was not raised in the application filed before the Trial Court on 17.12.2022. 2.3. He states that though one of the legal heirs, Mr. 2.2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner fairly concedes that the plea that no notice was issued to the legal heirs after they were brought on record 08.08.2018, was not raised in the application filed before the Trial Court on 17.12.2022. 2.3. He states that though one of the legal heirs, Mr. Dharmender Singh, the son of Petitioner No.1 and the brother of Petitioner No.2 was regularly appearing in the suit proceedings, the Petitioners herein were not aware about the pendency of the civil suit proceedings. He states that the Petitioners herein are estranged from Mr. Dharmender Singh. The learned counsel for the Petitioner fairly concedes that no such plea of the estrangement has been raised in this petition or before the Trial Court. 2.4. He states that the Petitioners learnt about the pendency of the suit, when the Local Commissioner appointed by the Court visited the suit property in the month of March, 2022. He states that in fact Petitioner No.2 duly appeared in the suit proceedings on 24.08.2022 and an application for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 19.02.2022 was filed. 3. In reply, Ms. Priyanka Yadav, Advocate, enters appearance on behalf of Respondent (i.e., the plaintiff herein) and states that the matter is listed before the Trial Court today for enabling the Petitioners to deposit the appropriate stamp duty. 3.1. She states that the Petitioners have come to the Court with unclean hands. She states that the Petitioners herein were duly present when the Local Commissioner had visited the suit properties in the year 2018 and they have been personally aware about the pendency of the suit. She states that the plea that they became aware in the year 2022, is false and misleading. 3.2. She states that the plea of the Petitioners that they are estranged from Mr. Dharmender Singh is false. She states that Mr. Dharmender Singh has been regularly appearing in these proceedings for and on behalf of all the legal heirs of the late defendant. She states that Mr. Dharmender Singh has also engaged an advocate to represent the interests of the legal heirs. 3.3. She states that the impugned order duly records that Mr. Dharmender Singh was regularly appearing either personally or through his counsel. She states that this petition has been filed at the eleventh hour to obstruct the proceedings before the Trial Court. 4. Dharmender Singh has also engaged an advocate to represent the interests of the legal heirs. 3.3. She states that the impugned order duly records that Mr. Dharmender Singh was regularly appearing either personally or through his counsel. She states that this petition has been filed at the eleventh hour to obstruct the proceedings before the Trial Court. 4. This Court has considered the submissions of the parties and perused the record. 5. The Petitioners herein through this petition are seeking an opportunity to file objections to the report of the Local Commissioner dated 16.10.2018. 6. The Local Commissioner report is dated 16.10.2018, therefore, the plea raised by the counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners herein have learnt about the pendency of the proceedings only in March, 2022, during the local Commissioner visit is ex-facie incorrect. 7. This Court has also perused the impugned order dated 03.04.2023. The said order, in detail, records each date on which Mr. Dharmender Singh, the son of Petitioner No.1 and brother of Petitioner No.2, was present himself or represented through a lawyer; and therefore, the allegation that the Trial Court proceedings have been conducted without notice of the legal representatives of late Mr. Lakhmi Chand (i.e., the defendant) is ex-facie incorrect. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 03.04.2023 reads as under: "I have gone through the material on record and submissions forwarded by Ld. Counsels for parties. In this case, the ex-parte order was passed on 19.02.2022, after calling the matter four times. Thereafter, Sh. Dharmender Kumar son of the defendant appeared on 31.03.2022 and the matter was listed for 21.04.2022, at his request, for consideration on the objection of report of local commissioner. On 21.04.2022, nobody appeared and the matter was listed for 26.04.2022. On 26.04.2022, only counsel for plaintiff appeared and arguments were heard on objection to the report of local commissioner (opportunity was not kept for defendant as they were already ex-parte, but allowed to join proceedings). On 16.07.2022, the objections to the report of local commissioner report was decided and the matter was listed for 24.08.2022 for valuation report. On 24.08.2022, Sh. Dharmender Kumar son of defendant appeared and the matter was listed for 12.09.2022 for valuation report. On 12.09.2022, Sh. D. C. Sharma, Advocate for defendant along with son of defendant appeared . Parties have taken some more time to file valuation report. On 24.08.2022, Sh. Dharmender Kumar son of defendant appeared and the matter was listed for 12.09.2022 for valuation report. On 12.09.2022, Sh. D. C. Sharma, Advocate for defendant along with son of defendant appeared . Parties have taken some more time to file valuation report. Matter was listed for 30.09.2022. On 30.09.2022, Sh. D.C. Sharma, advocate for defendant along with son of defendant appeared. Valuation reports were filed. Parties were directed to file appropriate stamp duties as per their shares and the matter was listed on 03.11.2022. On 03.11.2022, fresh vakalatnama filed on behalf of defendants and matter was listed for 19.12.2022 . On 19.12.2022, this application u/o.9 rule 7 CPC was filed. So, from the record, it appears that after passing ex-parte order on 19.02.2022, between 19.02.2022 and 16.07.2022, there was appearance of Sh.Dharmender son of defendant who himself requested for putting the matter on hearing objection petition. Even thereafter, between 16.07.2022 and 19.12.2022 (when this application was moved), three times there was representation on behalf of defendant. Even counsel for defendant and the son of the defendant appeared and participated in the proceedings. From order dated 24.08.2022, 12.09.2022 and 30.09.2022, there does not appear any grievance on behalf of defendant to the order dated 16.07.2022 or to the ex-parte order dated 19.02.2022. This alleged grievance on the objection petition appears to have been arisen only when there was change of counsel . So, it appears that the application is moved without any merits and just to delay the proceedings . Moreover, the application is also time barred since the defendants have knowledge of ex-parte order since 31.03.2022 (when son of defendant appeared). Accordingly, the application /o.9 rule 7 CPC dated 17.12.2022 filed by LRs defendants is dismissed." (Emphasis supplied) 8. The record of the Trial Court shows that even after Mr. Dharmender Singh, the son of Petitioner No.1 and brother of Petitioner No.2 entered appearance in August, 2022, the Petitioners failed to take any steps to file objections to the Local Commissioner's report. 9. This Court also finds that the plea that Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.2 are estranged from Mr. Dharmender Singh is untrue. No such plea has been raised in this petition or before the Trial Court. It is therefore, apparent that the Petitioner is abusing the process of the Court by raising false pleas. 10. 9. This Court also finds that the plea that Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.2 are estranged from Mr. Dharmender Singh is untrue. No such plea has been raised in this petition or before the Trial Court. It is therefore, apparent that the Petitioner is abusing the process of the Court by raising false pleas. 10. This Court also finds that the plea that no notice was issued to the legal heirs to be untrue. No such plea was raised in the application filed before the Trial Court. Mr. Dharmender Singh has been duly appearing before the Trial Court. It is therefore, apparent that the Petitioners and the legal representatives of late defendant are aware of the Trial Court proceedings. 11. The Petitioners want to file objections to the Local Commissioner's report. However, the Trial Court has already examined the said report and passed a detailed order of division on 16.07.2022. The Petitioners have not addressed any arguments before this Court with respect to any infirmity in the division proposed by the Trial Court in its order dated 16.07.2022. This petition filed after one (1) year seeking to undo the orders of the Trial Court is an abuse of process. 12. This Court is therefore, of the opinion that the Petitioners in this petition have approached this Court with unclean hands and have raised pleas, which were not raised before the Trial Court either in the application dated 17.12.2022 or during the hearing dated 03.04.2023. 13. The Petitioners have failed to point out any infirmity in the impugned order dated 19.02.2022, 16.07.2022 and 03.04.2023. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.