C.R. No. 6974 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 6974 of 2009 Date of decision 16.7.2010 Sudhir .......petitioner vs. Phoolpati & ors .......respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.D. Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.1. HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 17.11.2009 on an application filed by defendant No. 19-the present petitioner, refusing to set aside the ex-parte proceedings against him. The suit for possession by way of ejectment in respect of agricultural land measuring 510 kanals and 4 marlas was filed in the year 1998. Defendant No. 19 was proceeded ex-parte on 29.4.2004 after he was served by publication in the daily newspaper Dainik Chetna. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was never served with the notice of the suit as the Process Server has reported time and again that the petitioner is not residing at the given address. In stead of giving correct address, the plaintiff has served the present C.R. No. 6974 of 2009 -2- petitioner by way of publication and as a result of such process, he was proceeded against ex-parte. The learned trial Court has found that mother, brother and sister of the petitioner are parties to the suit and it is not believable that the petitioner did not have knowledge about the pendency of the suit. In view of the said fact, the trial Court has returned a finding that the application has been filed by the petitioner after publication in the daily newspaper to delay the proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that if one opportunity is given to the petitioner, he would file his written statement and lead his evidence. Such process will not delay the proceedings before the trial Court. Admittedly, Subhash, defendant No. 18, brother of the petitioner is being represented before the trial Court. In fact, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he wants to raise the plea of adverse possession. The fact that the petitioner wants to raise the plea of adverse possession shows that the only intention of the petitioner is to delay the proceedings so as to remain in possession on one ground or the other. The petitioner can be said to be aware of the proceedings pending at the trial Court. The petitioner has sought setting aside of the ex-parte proceedings on the false and incorrect grounds. Therefore I do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Court. In view of the said fact, I do not find any patent illegality or C.R. No. 6974 of 2009 -3- material irregularity in the findings recorded, which may warrant interference by the Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed with costs. The amount of Rs. 10,000/- deposited by the petitioner be remitted to the trial Court for disbursement of the amount to the plaintiff. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 16.7.2010 preeti