JUDGMENT 1. - By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set aside the orders dated 19th February, 2009 and 8th April, 2011 rendered by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) No.5, Jaipur City and Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.7, Jaipur City, respectively. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned orders. 3. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is noticed that one suit for pre-emption came to be filed by the respondents against the petitioner-defendant. The petitioner gave his appearance in the Court and filed the written statement. During the pendency of suit, the petitioner remained absent on 14th September, 2007 when the respondent-plaintiff PW/1 Jagdish Narayan was present in the Court who was to be cross-examined on that day. Thereafter, the suit was adjourned to 28th September, 2007, 29th September, 2007 and 13th November, 2007 but the petitioner did not put his appearance nor his counsel was present on these dates. Finally, suit came to be decreed ex-parte by the learned trial Court on 13th November, 2007. It is further revealed that the petitioner-defendant filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of CPC on 30th May, 2000 imploring the learned trial Court to set aside the ex-parte decree which was dismissed by the Court on 19th February, 2009. 4. Aggrieved with this order, the petitioner-defendant preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, No.7, Jaipur, that too after a lapse of one year of passing the order on application under Order 9, Rule 13 of CPC. The petitioner filed one more application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and implored to condone the delay. The learned Appellate Court is found to have dismissed both, the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act as also the appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, albeit, fairly conceded that the petitioner has been negligent through out the proceedings of the suit, despite that he has submitted that one more opportunity may be given to the petitioner so as to enable him to seek justice as the petitioner had filed the suit for pre-emption. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, albeit, fairly conceded that the petitioner has been negligent through out the proceedings of the suit, despite that he has submitted that one more opportunity may be given to the petitioner so as to enable him to seek justice as the petitioner had filed the suit for pre-emption. 6. At the very outset, it is relevant to point out that the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution can be invoked only when the impugned orders are found to be perverse, contrary to material and results in manifesting injustice. 7. It is also settled proposition of law that the High Court should not upset the pure findings of fact invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction. 8. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is noticed that the petitioner has been through out negligent in his conduct during the pendency of the suit. Initially, pursuant to the service of summon, he appeared in the Court but suddenly remained absent on 14th September, 2007. Thereafter, he did not put his appearance on four dates in the Court. Resultantly, the learned trial Court passed an ex-parte decree against him. It was not the end of the negligent attitude of the petitioner-defendant. The petitioner, when felt aggrieved with the ex-parte decree, filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of CPC which came to be dismissed on 19th February, 2009 but he did not prefer an appeal within the period of limitation. One year after passing the order dated 19th February, 2009, he moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act along with the appeal. The petitioner remained negligent in Appellate Court also and the learned appellate Court is also found to have deprecated his conduct and approach. The petitioner cannot be permitted to abuse the process of law in a manner he likes. Both the learned trial Court as also the learned Appellate Court are found to have rightly dismissed the application under Order 9, Rule 13 of CPC of the petitioner. Both the impugned orders are found to be just and proper and suffer from no infirmity. 9. I do not find any single reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by the courts below and the impugned orders, in the facts and circumstances of the case, did not warrant any intervention. 10. Both the impugned orders are found to be just and proper and suffer from no infirmity. 9. I do not find any single reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by the courts below and the impugned orders, in the facts and circumstances of the case, did not warrant any intervention. 10. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and the same being bereft of any merit, stands dismissed in limine. 11. Consequent upon the dismissal of the writ petition, the stay application filed therewith does not survive and that also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******