JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J. (oral) In this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner, Bias Thakur defendant, has assailed order dated 23.6.2011, passed by District Judge, Kinnaur, Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr, Camp at Reckong Peo, in Civil Appeal No.27 of 2010, titled as Sh. Bias Thakur versus Sh. Sohan Singh and another, affirming the order dated 24.5.2010, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kinnaur, District at Recong Peo, in C.M.A. No.27-6-2008, titled as Bias Thakur versus Sohan Singh and another, on 24.5.2010. 2. Plaintiff, Sohan Singh (respondent herein) filed a suit against the present petitioner who was proceeded ex parte. An ex parte order was passed on 27.5.2004 by Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kinnaur at Recong Peo. An application, under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, for setting aside the same was filed by the petitioner on 12.6.2008, clearly pleading that he was not aware summons/communication was ever received by him from the Court. The Courts below, finding the averment to be false dismissed the application. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, I am of the considered view that the present petition only merits rejection. No ground for interference is made out as the order passed by the Courts below cannot be said to be perverse, arbitrary, illegal, irrational, illogical or unreasonable. Also there is no error apparent on the face of record. Interest of justice only warrants dismissal of the petition. 4. I am of the considered view that applicant/petitioner not only made false averments in the application before the trial Court but failed to establish that the summons in the suit were not served upon him or that he was prevented by a sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called for hearing. 5. My attention is invited to communication dated 23.5.2002 addressed by the Officer of the petitioner to the trial Court. The same is reproduced in toto as under:- “24TH Battalion The Punjab Regiment Care of 99 Army Post Office 19/CC 23 May 2002 The Superintendent Senior Sub-Judge-Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate District Kinnaur (HP) WELFARE OF SERVING SOLDIER Sir, 1. Reference your Summon No10-10/2001 dated 29 April 2002. 2. It has been intimated by No.2493822F Sepoy Bias Thakur of this unit that case filed by Mr. Sohan Singh against Malik Ram is base-less and Sepoy Bias Thakur Summon attached. 3. Reference your Summon No10-10/2001 dated 29 April 2002. 2. It has been intimated by No.2493822F Sepoy Bias Thakur of this unit that case filed by Mr. Sohan Singh against Malik Ram is base-less and Sepoy Bias Thakur Summon attached. 3. You are requested to investigate the Case seriously as the unit is deployed in above Court Insurgency Operations, due to which his presence at the said date is not possible. 4. Action taken on the above may be intimated to this office for satisfaction of the individual concerned. 5. Please acknowledge receipt. Yours faithfully, (NS Guleria) Adjutant Major For Commanding Officer Copy to:- District Sainik Welfare Office A Photocopy of Summon is District Kinnour (HP). attached. You are requested to look into the matter and take necessary action.” 6. Thus, it is evidently clear that petitioner had not only received the summons but was aware of the proceedings before the trial Court. It is not the petitioner’s case that for four years he was posted in a sensitive area involved in insurgency operation, or that he never come home on leave or that there was none other than him to look after the affairs at home. Hence for all the aforesaid reasons, present appeal is dismissed, so also pending application(s) if any.