C. R. No. 2610 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 2610 of 2010 Date of Decision : April 22, 2010 Munshi Ram .... Petitioner Vs. Kali Charan .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendant Munshi Ram has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Respondent Kali Charan filed suit against petitioner Munshi Ram for recovery of Rs.68,800/-. The said suit was decreed vide ex-parte judgment and decree dated 12.04.2003. The defendant moved application on 14.06.2003 for setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree dated 12.04.2003 alleging that the defendant-petitioner was not served personally nor he refused the accept the summons. It was also alleged that the application has been filed within one month of the knowledge of the ex- parte judgment and decree. The application was opposed by plaintiff-respondent. It was inter alia pleaded that the defendant-petitioner was duly served in the suit by C. R. No. 2610 of 2010 2 ordinary process and then by proclamation by beat of drum as substituted service. The defendant-petitioner was watching proceedings of the suit by remaining present outside the court room. The defendant intentionally did not appear in the suit. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Abohar, vide judgment dated 18.07.2008 (Annexure P-1) dismissed defendant's application for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree. First appeal preferred by the defendant against the said order of the trial court has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Ferozepur, vide judgment dated 20.01.2009 (Annexure P-2). The defendant has filed the instant revision petition challenging judgments Annexures P-1 and P-2 of the courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. The defendant-petitioner, while appearing in the witness box, himself admitted that he came to know of the pendency of the suit, when munadi was effected in the village and thereafter, he contacted his counsel. Similar statement has been made by petitioner's other witness Purkha Ram. It is thus apparent from the petitioner's own evidence that the petitioner had been served in the suit and the petitioner intentionally did not appear in the court. There was, therefore, no ground, much less sufficient ground for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree, when the petitioner intentionally did not appear in the suit in spite of being served and having knowledge of pendency of the suit. The plaintiff-respondent examined concerned Process Server Ram Lubhaya, who stated that service of summons in the suit was duly effected on the defendant. He stated that on 15.11.2002, he went to village of the defendant and then accompanied by Watchman Purkha Ram, went to the house of the defendant. Munadi was effected by way of beat of drum. Summon was also affixed at the door of the house of defendant at C. R. No. 2610 of 2010 3 conspicuous place. Report of munadi was witnessed by Purkha Ram Watchman. Defendant-petitioner examined Purkha Ram as his witness and in the witness box, Purkha Ram admitted his signatures on munadi report on the summons. It is thus fully established that the defendant was served. In addition to the aforesaid, notice of the suit was also sent to defendant by registered A. D. post. Postman went to deliver the registered A. D. cover containing the summons to the defendant on 08.02.2002, but the defendant was not found. The postman again went to the defendant after ten days, when the defendant refused to accept the summons by registered post. The defendant was also thus served by registered A. D. post in addition to the service effected through munadi and affixation of summons at the door of defendant's house. It is, therefore, apparent that the defendant was duly served in the suit and defendant was also aware of the pendency of suit, but in spite thereof, the defendant did not appear in the suit intentionally. Thus, there is no ground for setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree. It may also be added that the application moved by the defendant is time barred. Ex-parte judgment and decree was passed on 12.04.2003, whereas application for setting aside the same was moved on 14.06.2003. The defendant-petitioner did not explain as to how later on he acquired knowledge of the ex-parte judgment and decree. On the other hand, the defendant-petitioner was already aware of the pendency of the suit and therefore, limitation period for moving application commenced on the passing of the ex-parte judgment and decree. Accordingly, the application moved by the petitioner was barred by limitation. Both the courts below have properly appreciated the evidence and come to concurrent finding against the defendant-petitioner. The said finding is now shown to be illegal or perverse in any manner so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. On the C. R. No. 2610 of 2010 4 other hand, no other reasonable view of the evidence was possible except the view, which has been taken by the courts below. The revision petition is completely frivolous and without merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. April 22, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE