ORDER : Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J. Instant petition at the instance of defendant-petitioner is directed against the order dated 09/06/2015 passed by the learned lower appellate court dismissing the appeal filed by the defendant-petitioner against the order dated 31/07/2010 passed by the learned trial court dismissing the application filed by the defendant petitioner under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 21/09/2004. 2. Counsel for the defendant-petitioner submitted that the both the courts below have erred in not considering this aspect of the matter that the defendant-petitioner is serving in para military force (BSF) and therefore could not get information regarding the suit as well as the ex-parte decree and that apart, he being bona fide purchaser of the suit property was required to be heard and put his defence in his favour but without considering such averments made in the application, the learned trial court dismissed the same and the learned lower appellate court also without considering the averments of the appeal, dismissed the appeal upholding order of the trial court. Counsel submits that in the interest of justice and looking to the principles of natural justice, the orders passed by the courts below deserve to be quashed and the defendant-petitioner should be allowed opportunity to put his defence and the petitioner is prepared to pay a reasonable cost. 3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent while supporting the orders of both the courts below submitted that the ex-parte judgment and decree has rightly been passed by the learned trial court as the summons were sent and duly received by the defendant-petitioner but despite that he failed to put appearance repeatedly without any cogent reason and as such, no interference is required to be made in the orders passed by the courts below. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record including the orders impugned passed by both the courts below. 5. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record including the orders impugned passed by both the courts below. 5. In the application filed by the defendant petitioner, he specifically averred that in the year 2001 and 2002, he was posted at Shrinagar (J&K) on Duty and thereafter remained posted at far flung areas due to which he was not well connected and in touch with his family members and hardly used to come to his village and as such, could not be able to put his appearance before the learned trial court. The service of the defendant petitioner in BSF has not been disputed in the instant case and as such, looking to the peculiar aspect of the matter, considering the fact that the petitioner is serving in para-military force, he should have been granted one opportunity by the courts below for putting his defence and leading evidence in the interest of justice and also to see that the principles of natural justice are followed subject to payment of the cost. Substantial justice is required to be done. Consequently, the revision petition stands allowed. The orders impugned dated 09/06/2015 and 31/07/2010 passed by the courts below are hereby quashed & set aside and the learned trial court is directed to decide the suit afresh after giving opportunity to the defendant-petitioner to put his defence and lead evidence subject to subject to payment of the cost, which is quantified at Rs. 10,000/- (Rs Ten Thousand). It is made clear that the amount of cost be paid to the plaintiff respondent. However, in case the defendant petitioner avoids to put his defence or lead evidence or avoids payment of cost, the learned trial court would be at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. Let the parties may appear before the trial court on 17/11/2016 along with copy of this order and the trial court will regulate the proceedings. Petition Allowed.