IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.140 of 2009 Most. Indrasan Kuer Versus Ram Kumar Gupta & Ors ---------------------------------- 9 21-9-2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1. This revision application has been filed against the order dated 23-9-2008 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 29 of 2006 by the District Judge, Muzaffarpur, affirming the order dated 14-11-2006 whereby Miscellaneous Case No. 15 of 2005 filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte decree had been dismissed. The petitioner is the defendant in a suit for eviction filed by the opposite parties and the said suit has resulted in ex-parte decree against the defendant. It is the case of the defendant that after getting knowledge of the ex-parte decree, she filed a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. praying for setting aside the ex-parte decree on the ground that no summons had been served upon the petitioner, who had been residing in a village and in place of serving the summons upon the defendant-petitioner, the same had been served upon some other person. 2 The Miscellaneous Case No. 15 of 2005 initiated on the basis of the petitioner’s petition , had been heard by the court below and after considering the evidence led by both the parties, it has been held that the petitioner had been living jointly with her sons and summons had been properly served on her and she had knowledge of the suit. In appeal by the petitioner also the same finding had been recorded by the appellate court after reappraisal of the evidence and submissions of the parties. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently submitted that both the courts below have not correctly appreciated the evidence and have come to a wrong finding that the summons had been validly served upon the petitioner. Referring to the finding in the impugned orders, the learned counsel has emphasized that the petitioner is not joint with her sons and therefore service of summons upon the sons cannot be deemed to be service of summons upon the petitioner. The perusal of the impugned orders reveals that both the courts below have concurrently come to the finding that summons of the eviction suit had been validly served upon the petitioner. In revisional jurisdiction the reappraisal of the evidence and 3 interference with the findings of fact, particularly concurrent findings of fact, is normally not permissible unless the same are shown to be perverse. The Apex Court in the case reported in 1971 Supreme Court 2324 has gone to the extent of holding that the findings of fact, even if erroneous, are binding on a court exercising jurisdiction under section 115 C.P.C. Nothing could be shown to establish that the findings of fact by both the courts below are perverse.In this view of the matter, there is no legal infirmity in the impugned orders. This revision application is, accordingly, dismissed. roy ( V. Nath, J.)