ORDER 1. Challenging the orders dated 16.8.2011 and 23.1.2013 passed by the VIth Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Execution Case No.09/2008, rejecting objections under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC and an application under Order XXI Rule 106 CPC, petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. It is seen that the dispute was referred for arbitration. The arbitrator passed an award and now the award is put to execution in Execution Case No.9/08. In the said execution proceedings petitioners raised the objection under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC and, therefore, these objections were registered as MJC No. 647/2011. The objection was listed for hearing on 16.8.2011 when neither the counsel for the objectors, namely the present petitioners, appeared nor both the objectors were present, therefore, the objection under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC was dismissed by the court on 16.8.2011. Thereafter an application for restoration of these proceedings was filed under Order XXI Rule 106 CPC read with section 151 CPC and the same having also been rejected on 21.3.2013, petitioners are before this Court. 3. Even though various averments are made in the writ petition and Shri Naman Nagrath, learned Senior Advocate prays for allowing the writ petition, but the fact remains that when the objections were taken up for hearing on 16.8.2011 it is seen that non-appeared and, therefore, the application was rejected. However, in the proceedings held under Order XXI Rule 106 CPC restoration was sought for merely on the ground that on 16.8.2011 the counsel for the objectors one Shri M.Z. Qureshi was out of India, he had gone to New York and, therefore, he could not appeared. As far as two objectors, i.e. the present petitioners were concerned, it was stated that they are sick and, therefore, they also not came to this Court. All these factors considered by the court and Court found that the petitioners herein have not produced any documents or evidence to show that on 16.8.2011 they were unable to attend the Court because of their ailment or illness. All these factors considered by the court and Court found that the petitioners herein have not produced any documents or evidence to show that on 16.8.2011 they were unable to attend the Court because of their ailment or illness. The particulars of their ailment or illness are not supported by any medical certificate or any other documents in support thereof is filed and holding that both the persons cannot fell sick on the same day and even if they had fallen sick on the same day nothing in support thereof is filed the application was rejected by holding that the reasonable justification for absence on 16.8.2011 has not been indicated and finding the requirement of setting aside the order, rejecting the objection is not reasonably explained, the application is rejected. Rejection of the application for the reasons, as indicated hereinabove, and the justification given by the Court for the same cannot be termed as perverse, erroneous or illegal to such an extent that interference into the matter by this Court in these proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution is called for. 4. Accordingly, finding no case for interference this petition is dismissed.