Civil Revision No. 2136 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2136 of 2011 Date of Decision: 1.8.2011 *** Pargat Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Dilbagh Singh .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. G.L. Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner was arrayed as defendant in the civil suit filed by respondent-plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 28.6.2001. In the said suit the defendant was proceeded against ex-parte on 6.6.2003 and ultimately it was decreed on 9.3.2005. On 24.10.2007 the petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside of the aforesaid ex-parte judgment. The application was resisted by the plaintiff-decree holder; the issues were struck on and evidence was led. Ultimately, the learned Court below dismissed the said application vide order dated 2.6.2009 and the petitioner failed to get any relief in the appeal filed by him which was also dismissed vide order dated 10.1.2011. Dis-satisfied with the same, the instant revision petition has been filed. Heard. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was never served in the suit and he was not aware of the pendency of the civil suit and the ex-parte judgment and decree passed therein. Only on the basis of wrong reports submitted by the process server, he was proceeded against ex-parte. According to learned counsel the petitioner is not resident of village Hassan Bhatti where the alleged summons were sent and in fact he is resident of village Kabal Wala. Civil Revision No. 2136 of 2011 2 The perusal of the impugned orders passed by the Courts below, it is evident that the summons to the defendant were issued for 6.6.2003 and for effecting service process server went to village Hassan Bhati on 22.3.2003 but defendant-petitioner was reportedly not found. Same remains the position on 15.4.2003. However on 24.4.2003 defendant was found and when asked to accept service of summons, he refused to it and a copy of plaint was pasted on it. Apart from the signatures of the process server, Geja Singh, Chowkidar of the village put his thumb impression thereupon as a witness. Had such report been false, he could have examined aforesaid Geja Singh in support of the plea that no such service of summons was offered to him. Apart therefrom, to prove that he is residing somewhere else than the place where the summons were issued, the petitioner did not bother to examine any resident of that locality. Merely on the basis of his self-serving statement, the ex-parte judgment cannot be set aside. The onus lies heavily upon him to prove that he was not in fact served in the case, but he failed to discharge the same by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Both the Courts below, taking the aforesaid circumstances into consideration, concurrently held that the petitioner deliberately allowed the suit to go uncontested. The findings of fact returned by both the Courts below need no interference by this Court. Dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE August 01, 2011 Jiten