Civil Revision No. 4321 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4321 of 2008 Date of Decision: September 03, 2008 Girwar Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Karan Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr R.D.Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. T.P.S .MANN, J. In the year 1984, a civil suit was filed by Bhey Ram against Karan Singh and others. On 15.1.1998, an application filed by Bhey Ram-plaintiff for impleading the petitioner as defendant No.7 was allowed. After the amended plaint was filed, learned trial Court ordered summoning of the petitioner. Service of the petitioner was duly effected by sending him notice through registered post, which he received and in token of the same, he signed the acknowledgment attached therewith. In spite of the same, the petitioner had not appeared in the suit and was proceeded against exparte on 9.3.1988. Later-on, suit was decreed against the petitioner and other defendants on 9.6.1989. Claiming that he had never been served in the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the order passed by the learned trial Court, ordering exparte proceedings against him and also final judgment and decree. The application was dismissed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr Civil Revision No. 4321 of 2008 -2- Division), Rewari on 16.2.2002. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order but the appeal was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Rewari on 15.1.2007. He is now before this Court by filing a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India so as to seek setting aside of the orders passed by the learned lower Courts. After the presentation of the amended plaint, the learned trial Court had issued notice for service of the petitioner on filing of process fee etc. On 15.2.1988, the registered AD was received back by the Court, duly signed by the petitioner. When no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner, the learned trial Court ordered for proceeding exparte against the petitioner. Mere fact that the order was passed by the learned trial Court to serve the petitioner through ordinary process on filing of process fee etc. but instead, summons were sent through registered post is no ground to hold that the petitioner was not served in the manner, as ordered by the Court. Notice sent under registered cover was duly received by the petitioner and he appended his signatures on the acknowledgment due. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not aware of the Court proceedings. The petitioner has not cared to examine any Handwriting and Finger Expert so as to establish that the signatures appearing on the registered AD were not his. On the other hand, the plaintiff had examined Vijay Rastogi, Handwring and Finger Expert as RW-3, who in his detailed report Exhibit RW-3/1, as well as in his testimony specifically deposed that the signatures on the registered AD were that of the petitioner. After the exparte decree was passed, the plaintiff applied for Civil Revision No. 4321 of 2008 -3- execution. Even in those proceedings summons were sent to the petitioner on 12.11.1993, but he refused to accept the same. Rajender, Process Server while appearing as RW-1 testified that he had taken the summons of the execution petition for serving them upon the petitioner, but he refused to receive the same. Report made by the Process Server in that regard was counter signed by Laxman, Chowkidar. Service was later-on effected through Munadi. In spite of all this, the petitioner did not appear in the execution proceedings. It was after about 8 years and 4 months of the passing of the exparte decree that the petitioner chose to file an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. He has not been able to give any satisfactory explanation regarding his absence from the Court and the delay in filing the application. His plea that he learnt about the exparte proceedings only on the basis of Rapt Rajnomcha dated 18.7.1997 cannot be accepted as all this while, he was aware of the proceedings pending in the Court, in which he had been proceeded against exparte. In view of the above, no fault can be found with the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below in declining to entertain the application of the petitioner for setting aside of the exparte proceedings. This revision is without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. (T.P.S.MANN) September 03, 2008. JUDGE Pds Civil Revision No. 4321 of 2008 -4-