IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1478 of 2008 ---- Sita Ram Gupta, Son of Late Sheo Prasad Sah, Resident of Village-Nawada Gali, P.S. Industrial Area, P.O. Hajipur, District-Vaishali. -Defendant-applicant- appellant petitioner. Versus Madan Lal, Son of Late Kanhaiya Mahto, resident of Mohalla-Station Road, P.O. Hajipur, P.S. Hajipur Sadar, District-Vaishali. -- Plaintif-Opposite Party-respondent-Opposite party. ----- For the petitioner : M/s. Shrinandan Prasad Singh & Ashok Kumar No.1, Advocates. For the opposite party: M/s Suresh Chandra Pd. Sinha, Ratan Kumar Sinha and Madhukar Pandey, Advocates. ----- 07. 14.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the sole defendant- applicant-appellant-petitioner challenging judgment dated 23.07.2008 by which the learned District Judge, Vaishali dismissed Miscellaneous Appeal No.04 of 2008 and affirmed order dated 15.03.2008 by which the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Hajipur dismissed Miscellaneous Case No.04 of 2005 which was filed by the petitioner under the provision of Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside ex parte decree dated 02.02.2005 passed by the trial court in Eviction Suit No.04 of 2003. 3. There is no dispute that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the opposite party had filed the aforesaid Eviction Suit No.04 of 2003 for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of expiry of fixed period of tenancy on the basis of deed for 14 months lease which expired, but the defendant neither vacated the suit premises nor paid rent to the plaintiff for the month - 2 - of October, 2003. It transpires that notices were issued, but no one appeared on behalf of the defendant-petitioner in the Eviction Suit No.04 of 2003 and the said suit was decreed ex parte on 02.02.2005 by the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Hajipur. 4. It transpires that thereafter the defendant filed Miscellaneous Case No.04 of 2005 under the provision of Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside ex parte decree and for re-hearing of the eviction suit. The said miscellaneous case was contested by the plaintiff and was dismissed by a detailed order dated 15.03.2008 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Vaishali. Against the aforesaid judgment, the defendant-petitioner filed Miscellaneous Appeal No.04 of 2008 which was also contested by the plaintiff-opposite party and after hearing the matter in detail, the learned District Judge, Vaishali dismissed the Miscellaneous Appeal vide his judgment dated 23.07.2008. Against the aforesaid judgment of the learned court below, the instant civil revision has been filed by the defendant-petitioner. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials on record, including the impugned order of the learned court below, it is quite apparent that the learned courts below gave full opportunity to the parties to raise their pleadings and lead their evidence and after hearing them came to the conclusion that the witnesses fully supported the claim of the opposite party that summons of the eviction suit were duly served on the defendant in their presence, whereas defendant-petitioner failed to disprove those - 3 - evidence and also failed to establish that summons of the eviction suit was not duly served upon him. The learned court below also found that in spite of valid service of summons, the defendant did not appear in the suit and hence there was no illegality in the trial court continuing with the eviction suit ex parte and deciding it by its judgment dated 02.02.2005. 6. All these findings are concurrent findings of facts of both the learned courts below based upon full consideration of the pleadings and evidence of the parties and hence there is no occasion for this court to interfere with those findings. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below, nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)