Civil Revision No.2724 of 2007 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2724 of 2007 Date of Decision: April 29, 2008 Om Parkash & another ...Petitioners VERSUS Naib Singh & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.S.S.Walia, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Bhag Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners suffered an ex-parte judgment and decree dated 17.8.2001. Their prayer for setting-aside the same was declined by Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambala on 14.3.2006. They remained un-successful in appeal against the said order and Civil Revision No.2724 of 2007 : 2 : have now filed this present petition. The petitioners state that they learnt about the decree dated 17.8.2001 when they received summons in the execution petition filed by the respondents. According to them, they then applied for certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 17.8.2001 and learnt that false and frivolous suit was filed by the respondents on procured document, i.e., agreement to sell dated 16.3.1999. It is averred that petitioner No.1 is blind and his wife, petitioner No.2, is an illiterate and as such they have been deceived by a false and fictitious agreement, afore-mentioned, which has led to the ex-parte decree against them. It is in this background, the petitioners have filed an application for setting-aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 17.8.2001. Notice of the application was given to the respondents, who raised various objections including that of application being barred and not maintainable. It is also pleaded that the petitioners did not intentionally appear in the court with malafide intention to delay the execution proceedings and registration of the sale deed. The trial court framed the issues and accordingly held that no case for setting- aside the ex-parte decree is made out. While analysing the evidence, the courts have found that the assertions made by the petitioners in their application were not fully made out. Petitioner No.1 had pleaded that his wife is illiterate, whereas during his cross-examination he conceded that she was middle class pass. He also conceded that he was served on the same address in execution proceedings, which Civil Revision No.2724 of 2007 : 3 : was the address given on the summons sent to him in the suit. Process Server was also produced as a witness, who deposed that Ram Singh Lumberdar has put his thumb impressions as a witness on the summons meant for the petitioners. The petitioners in their evidence admitted that Ram Singh is the Lumberdar in the village. The respondents had also examined Sardara RW-1, who was a witness to munadi which was effected. The court did not find any discrepancy in the evidence so produced and has accordingly held that the petitioners were properly served. It can further be seen that petitioner No.1 had also admitted in his cross-examination that he and his wife had received summons, which he had given to his counsel. He, however, did not remember if his wife had affixed her thumb impressions on the summons or not. It has already been noticed that he conceded that one Ram Singh is the Lumberdar and Mohinder Pal is the Chowkidar in the village. After appreciation of this evidence, the trial court has come to the conclusion that no case for interfering in the ex-parte order passed in this case was made out. The counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any substantial reason, which may require interference in the impugned order. The revision is accordingly dismissed. April 29, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE