IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.445 of 2008. Date of decision: 08.12.2011. Shri Moti Ram son of Shri Babu Ram, Caste Khatri, resident of Village Thana Kalan, Tehsil Bangana, District Una, H.P. … … …Petitioner Versus Shri Balwant Singh son of Shri Sohnu Ram, Caste Rajput, resident of Village Thana Kalan, Tehsil Bangana, District Una, H.P. … … …Respondent Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr.N.K. Thakur, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner, who was the appellant before the learned appellate Court, against the order of learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, dismissing the appeal against the order of the learned trial Court passed on an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure instituted by the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 petitioner herein praying for setting aside ex-parte decree dated 8.11.2001. 2. The petitioner suffered an ex-parte decree on 8.11.2001. He pleads that he is the co-owner in possession of shop in dispute and always remained present in Court, but was never served in the suit. The plaintiff Balwant Singh obtained this decree by suppressing the fact that the defendant, petitioner herein, was never served in the suit. On 31.12.2001, he is supposed to have visited the shop of the defendant, petitioner herein. At that time the plaintiff was drunk and proclaimed that he had obtained a decree and would be executing it against him. The learned trial Court settled two issues on 29.5.2002. First relating to the fact as to whether there was sufficient ground for setting aside the ex-parte order and second whether the application was within time. Both issues were decided against the defendant on the evidence on record. In appeal, the learned appellate Court has dismissed it after reconsideration of the entire evidence. 3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. Learned counsel urges that there was no due service and the fact that the rent was excessively fixed. Two Courts having concurrently found in favour of the respondent, I cannot upset findings of fact in a 3 petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is rejected. December 8, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.