3.1 It is his submission due to acute poverty the Petitioner could not afford to contest the suit, for which he engaged a counsel through TLSC, who filed an application to set aside the aforesaid ex-parte order. Learned trial Court, without realizing the real difficulty of the Petitioner, passed the impugned orders. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of record, it appears that vide order dated 22nd June, 2016, Petitioner/Defendant No.5 was set ex-parte. After lapse of six years, he filed an application on 2nd May, 2022 to set aside the order dated 25th February, 2016. Learned trial Court holding the Petitioner could not satisfy the Court with regard to his non-appearance on the date of hearing, rejected his application. Without assailing the said order, the Petitioner again filed an application on 20th September, 2022 under Order IX Rule 7 CPC to set aside the orders dated 25th February, 2016 and 22nd June, 2022. The said application has been rejected vide order dated 10th October, 2022. It further appears that the Petitioner has not explained a sufficient cause for his nonappearance on 25th February, 2016, when the suit was called for hearing. No material in support of his case was also filed. Hence, learned trial Court has committed no error in rejecting the petitions dated 20th September, 2022 as well as 2nd May, 2022. Further, without assailing the said order before the higher forum, Petitioner through the Advocate engaged by TLSC, Salipur, filed another application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC. When the order dated 22nd June, 2022 was staring at the Petitioner filing of the petition under Order IX Rule 7 CPC
