JUDGMENT : By way of this petition, filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner herein assails order dated 10.12.2018, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Una, District Una, H.P., in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.307VI2017, titled as Raj Rani Versus Seeta Devi, vide which an application filed by the petitioner, under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside judgment and decree passed against her was dismissed, as well as the judgment dated 07.06.2019, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge,1, Una, District Una, H.P., in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.01 of 2019, titled as Raj Rani Versus Seeta Devi alias Surjit Kaur, whereby the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal preferred by the present petitioner against the rejection of the application by the learned Trial Court was also dismissed. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the respondent herein filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the parties i.e. the respondent and the petitioner were joint owners-in-possession in equal share of the suit land being daughters of Rattan Chand and that Will dated 22.07.2009 alleged to have been executed by deceased Rattan Chand was illegal, null and void, inoperative and ineffective. Vide order dated 21.08.2012, the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte in the Civil Suit. An ex parte decree was passed in favour of the petitioner and against the defendant by the learned Trial Court on 10.04.2017. 3. The petitioner preferred an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for setting aside order dated 21.08.2012, vide which she was proceeded against ex parte by the learned Trial Court, as well as the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court on 10.04.2017, which was ex parte. Alongwith this application, one more application was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, praying for condonation of delay in filing the application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned Trial Court after allowing the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and by condoning the delay in filing the application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, dismissed the application filed under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure vide order dated 10.12.2018. Learned Trial Court after allowing the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and by condoning the delay in filing the application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, dismissed the application filed under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure vide order dated 10.12.2018. The order in appeal has been upheld by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 07.06.2019. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this Revision Petition. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Trial Court erred in proceeding against the petitioner, who was the defendant before the learned Trial Court, ex-parte by ignoring the fact that the defendant was never served during the proceedings in the Civil Suit. He submits that this extremely important aspect of the matter has been completely ignored by the learned Court below while dismissing the application filed for recalling the ex-parte judgment and decree. As per him, as this has caused great injustice to the petitioner, therefore, this Revision Petition be allowed and the ex-parte judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below be set aside by also setting aside the orders which stand impugned by way of this Revision Petition. Learned Counsel has also argued that the intent of the respondent/plaintiff to mislead the Court is further borne out from the fact that wrong address and wrong parentage of the defendant, i.e. the present petitioner was mentioned in the memo of parties of the suit filed before the learned Trial Court. 6. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent has argued that the application filed under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rightly dismissed by the learned Trial Court by assigning the reasons which stand mentioned therein, as it is clearly borne out from the record that the defendant did put in appearance before the learned Trial Court in person and thereafter when she chose not to appear before the learned Court below, the Court was having no option but to proceed against the defendant ex-parte. He submits that the plea, which has been raised with regard to the alleged non service of the defendant before the learned Trial are nothing but an after though. He submits that the plea, which has been raised with regard to the alleged non service of the defendant before the learned Trial are nothing but an after though. He further submits that the defendant was fully aware of the pendency of the proceedings, yet after appearing once before the learned Court in person, she chose not to appear or engage anyone on her behalf and in these circumstances, there was no infirmity or illegality with regard to passing of the ex-parte decree by the learned Trial Court and thus, this petition being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed. He further argued that in the memo of parties of the Civil Suit, defendant Raj Rani was rightly reflected as wife of Salinder Kumar and it not as if her address was given by reflecting her parentage therein. He further submits that the address which was mentioned in the cause title of the Civil Suit of the defendant was correct, is further apparent from the fact that the same address has been reflected in the subsequent applications which have been filed by the defendant. On these grounds, he has prayed that the petition be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as record of the case. 8. A perusal of the order which has been passed by the learned Trial Court while dismissing the application filed by the present petitioner, under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, demonstrates that what weighed with the learned Court below was the fact that the petitioner herein had appeared before the learned Trial Court on 07.06.2012, in terms of the proceedings of that date entered in the hand of the learned Presiding Officer herself. In order to ascertain as to whether the findings so returned in order dated 10.12.2018 were correct findings, this Court has perused the original record of the Civil Suit. The Zimini Orders passed in the Civil Suit demonstrate that following order was passed by the learned Presiding Officer on 07.06.2012: “Defendant be served by RAD on filing the stamp value within 5 days for 21.8.12. At this stage, defendant has put in appearance. Put up for Ws on 21.8.12.” 9. This order is in the hand of the Judicial Officer. At this stage, defendant has put in appearance. Put up for Ws on 21.8.12.” 9. This order is in the hand of the Judicial Officer. Thus, it is apparent from a perusal of this order that defendant had put in appearance before the learned Presiding Officer. Now, in this background, when one peruses the applications which were filed by the present petitioner under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the same demonstrate that except a bald statement that the petitioner did not appear before the learned Trial Court on 07.06.2012, there is nothing placed on record to substantiate this contention of the petitioner. In this case, on one hand there is a bald statement contained in the application made by the petitioner which is footed against a judicial order. The presumption of truth but natural is attached with the judicial order. In case, defendant actually had not put in appearance before the learned Court below on 07.06.2012, then she could have had spelled out as on that date where was she, so that the contention of her that she actually did not appear before the learned Court below on 07.06.2012, could have been substantiated. In the absence of the same, this Court has no reason to disbelieve the judicial record, in terms whereof the defendant had put in appearance in person before the learned Court below on 07.06.2012. 10. Incidentally, the record of the learned Trial Court demonstrates that on the next date, i.e. 21.08.2012, it was again expressly recorded in the order that defendant was not present despite the fact that she was present on the previous date of hearing. There is no allegation in the petition or the application with regard to impersonation etc. 11. That being the case, this Court is of the considered view that there is no infirmity with the order passed by the learned Trial Court as affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, vide which the application filed under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the present petitioner stood dismissed, because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the ex-parte judgment and decree passed against her was bad as she was never served in the Civil Suit. 12. 12. One more fact that this Court would like to refer at this stage is that in terms of the judgment and decree which has been passed by the learned Trial Court, the suit property which in fact belonged to the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff and the defendant, who were real sisters, now dwelled upon them in an equal share. 13. The Will, which stood assailed in the Civil Suit, was the one, in terms whereof the suit property purportedly stood bequeathed by its testator in favour of the present petitioner to the extent of 2/3rd share and to the extent of 1/3rd share in favour of the present respondent. This Will has been disbelieved by the learned Trial Court by holding both the parties, i.e. the sisters to be entitled to equal share of the property of their father. On equity also, this judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court seems to be just and reasonable. 14. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, as this Court does not finds any merit in this petition, the same is dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. No order as to costs.