C.R. No. 6379 of 2006 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 6379 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision : 20.8.2009 Ronak Singh .......... Petitioner Versus Nand Lal ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. V.K. Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Gaurav Singla, Advocate for Mr. Rajnish Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 6.11.2006, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Kaithal vide which ex parte proceedings and decree against the respondent / defendant, have been ordered to be set side. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant / respondent in which the defendant / respondent was proceeded against ex parte on 11.5.1989. The ex parte decree was thereafter passed on 22.7.1992. It was on 19.7.2005, that an application was moved for setting aside ex parte decree on the plea, that the respondent / defendant came to C.R. No. 6379 of 2006 2 know about the ex parte decree on 13.6.2005. The learned trial Court did not accept the version of the defendant and came to the conclusion, that the respondent / defendant was served through munadi, therefore, there was a valid service and there was no explanation forthcoming for delay in moving the application. The learned lower appellate Court, however, reversed the finding of the learned trial Court by holding, that the service on the defendant was duly effected especially for the reason that in spite of report of refusal the Court did not proceed the defendant against ex parte, thus, the report was not believed, whereas the report of the munadi was believed though it was mentioned therein that Nand Lal, was staying at Karnal. The said report could not be accepted, in fact, the defendant was not served in the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended, that the impugned order cannot be sustained, as it is outcome of misreading of evidence. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was, that statement of Process Server that Nand Lal was residing at Karnal was merely a slip of tongue / typographical mistake, as it was not even the case of the defendant / respondent that he was resident of Karnal, rather it was admitted case of both the parties that the respondent was resident of Pundri. However, it is not in dispute, that for some time the defendant had shifted to Delhi. Once it was proved on record, that the defendant had shifted to Delhi the learned trial Court could not have accepted the service by munadi, as on C.R. No. 6379 of 2006 3 the date of munadi defendant was admittedly not residing at Pundri. Even otherwise no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as by setting aside the ex parte decree, the parties have been granted liberty to contest the claim on merit. No ground is made out to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned order. However, keeping in view the fact that the suit was filed in the year 1989, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the case. 20.8.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE