CR No.1848 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CR No.1848 of 2001 Date of decision : 10.11.2010 Dal Singh and another .............Petitioners Vs. Balbir Singh etc. ...........Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present:- Mr. J.S.Toor, Advocate, for the petitioners None for the respondents --- HEMANT GUPTA, J (Oral) : The defendants are in revision against the order passed by the learned trial Court on 7.2.1998 whereby an application for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree dated 23.2.1991 was dismissed as also the order passed by the learned First Appellate Court on 8.9.2000 whereby appeal against the said order was dismissed. The plaintiff-respondent Balbir Singh filed suit for pre- emption as a co-sharer in respect of the suit land on 9.6.1990. The vendor Ram Kumar was impleaded as defendant No.1 whereas the vendees were impleaded as defendants No.2 to 5. Defendant No.1 refused to accept summons for 9.11.1990 and consequent thereto affixation was made. The learned trial Court ordered the defendants to be served by munadi. The munadi by beat of drum was conducted CR No.1848 of 2001 -2- on 19.12.1990 and consequently the ex parte proceedings were initiated against the defendants on 7.12.1991 as none has put in appearance on behalf of the defendants. Subsequently, the ex parte judgment and decree has been granted on 23.2.1991. The application for setting aside of ex parte judgment and decree was filed on 6.5.1991 which has been dismissed as per the orders mentioned above. Both the Courts have found that the petitioner was served by munadi which was carried out by Ram Dia, Chowkidar AW-2 and in the presence of Ronki Ram, member panchayat as well as RW 2 Uday Singh, process server, who carried munadi and affixation. It was held that it was for the petitioner to establish that the defendants were not properly served. Both the learned Courts have examined the evidence led by the parties in minute detail and have returned a finding of fact that the petitioners were properly served and that sufficient cause is not shown so as to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree. The ex parte judgment and decree also stands executed. Therefore, I do not find any sufficient reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below whereby the ex parte judgment and decree granted against the petitioner as the same does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 10th Nov., 2010 akm