JUDGMENT 1. - By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have implored to quash and set-aside the orders dated 9th November, 2011 (Annexure-2) and 5th December, 2011 (Annexure-4) rendered by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Objection Petition No. 4/2011 titled as Prem Devi v. Bholanath and further to quash and set-aside the impugned order dated 15.2.2012 (Annexure-5) passed by the Additional District Judge No. 9, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Civil Appeal No. 38/2011. 2. Adumbrated in brief, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent Bholanath filed a suit for possession against Nandlal Gattani in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.1, Jaipur and the same was decreed in favour of the plaintiff Bholanath on 6th November, 1986. The petitioners have come out with a case that they were not impleaded as party-respondents in the suit, whereas they were the owners of the property in question and they were in possession of this property in dispute too. The petitioners have further averred that the husband of petitioner no.1 and father of the petitioner no.2 Mr. Purshottam Gattani was not the legal representative of the defendant judgment debtor Nandlal. In the childhood, Purshottam was adopted by Suraj Narayan. Hence, Purshottam became owner of property of Suraj Narayan and Rama Devi. Concealing all these material facts, the plaintiff-respondent filed the above suit without impleading the petitioners as party and obtained the decree of possession in his favour. 3. It is further revealed that the judgment debtor Nandlal submitted Civil Regular First Appeal, but the same stood dismissed. Aggrieved with the order of the first appellate court, the judgment debtor filed second appeal in the High Court, but that was also dismissed and thus, the decree passed by the trial court attained finality. Thereafter a warrant of possession was issued by the Executing Court. The petitioners have submitted that sans the petitioners being party in the suit and appeal, the judgment debtor impleaded them to be a party in the execution petition pending in the Executing Court. When the petitioners were impleaded as party in the execution proceedings, they came to know about the decree having been passed by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Aggrieved with that, the petitioners submitted the objection petition under Order 21 Rule 97 read-with Section 151 CPC before the court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. When the petitioners were impleaded as party in the execution proceedings, they came to know about the decree having been passed by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Aggrieved with that, the petitioners submitted the objection petition under Order 21 Rule 97 read-with Section 151 CPC before the court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No. 7, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. It is further revealed from the proceedings drawn by the Executing Court that on 9th November, 2011, neither the petitioners nor their counsel appeared in the Court and the application filed by the petitioners under Order 9 Rule 9 readwith Section 151 CPC was dismissed for non appearance. The petitioners thereafter filed a restoration application before the executing court, but the same also stood dismissed on 5th December, 2011. Aggrieved with the order of the executing court, the petitioners preferred an appeal and the appeal also stood dismissed by learned Additional District Judge No. 9, Jaipur Metropolitan. Hence, the instant writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned orders. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners canvassed that it is true that on 9th November, 2011, none appeared before the court and the application was dismissed by the Court. Learned counsel further canvassed that it was for the counsel for the party to appear before the court and if he was negligent in his duty and did not appear in court, the party could not be left to suffer for his act. Learned counsel further canvassed that if the petitioners were not allowed to argue in the case, they would be deprived from seeking justice in the case. Learned Executing Court dismissed the application for non appearance. Had the same been decided on merits, the petitioners would not have preferred the writ petition. Hence, in the interest of justice, they may be granted one and the only opportunity to appear before the Court and put their case, so as to seek justice in the case. 6. E Converso, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and contended that the petitioners suppressed true facts while submitting the application for restoration of application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC. 6. E Converso, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and contended that the petitioners suppressed true facts while submitting the application for restoration of application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC. The petitioners made the court to understand that the case was pending for settling the issues, whereas the fact was that the case was pending for arguments as to whether the issues were to be framed or not. Albeit, there was no necessity to frame the issues, but it was at the behest of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the court adjourned the case for hearing arguments as to whether the issues were required to be settled or not. Knowing this fact fully well that the case was in-fact posted for hearing arguments as to whether the issues were to be settled, the petitioners suppressed this truth and gave a wrong impression before the court to understand that it was pending for framing the issues. The learned trial court having considered the submissions made at the bar and critically analyzed the facts and circumstances of the case ad-longum arrived at a finding that the petitioners had been granted ample opportunity on 21st September, 2011, 30th September, 19th October and 1st November to argue the application, but neither the counsel for the petitioners appeared in the Court on 1st November, 2011 nor appeared on 9th November, 2011, hence there was no option left with the Presiding Officer of the court, but to dismiss the application for non appearance. It is the exclusive domain of the court to adjudicate as to whether the application was to be dismissed on merits or was to be dismissed for non appearance and non prosecution. The instant case is squarely covered by the judgment of this very Court delivered in the case of M/s. Hari Om Enterprises v. Court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Ajmer reported in WLC (Raj.) 2011 (3) page 466 . In the light of the judgment of M/s. Hari Om Enterprises, the instant writ petition is without any substance and the same deserves to be dismissed. 7. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the relevant material on record, it is found that there has been a concurrent finding of the court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. 7. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the relevant material on record, it is found that there has been a concurrent finding of the court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) as also the appellate court of Additional District Judge No. 9, Jaipur Metropolitan on the facts in issue. 8. I have consistently reiterated in my judgments that the Hon'ble Apex court in plethora of cases has held that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution must be exercised sparingly and to correct the errors of jurisdiction and the like, but not to upset the pure findings of fats, which fall in the domain of appellate court only. The High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is required to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction only when the impugned order is found to be perverse or based on material illegality or it results in manifesting injustice. In the instant case, the impugned orders are just and apposite and do not suffer from any infirmity. 9. I do not find any ground to interfere with the finding of two courts below and the same does not warrant any intervention. 10. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and the same being bereft of any merit stands dismissed. 11. Consequent upon the dismissal of writ petition, the stay application, filed herewith, does not survive and that also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******