IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2981 of 2001. (Old CMWP No. 27283 of 1999) Gurdeep Singh son of Sri Darbara Singh, resident of village Gulzarpur, Tahsil Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. … Petitioner. Vs. Commissioner, Kumaun Division and others. …Respondents. Sri J.S.Virk, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Gopal Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 & 4. Sri R.C.Arya, Brief Holder for the State-respondent no.5. Date December 16, 2008. P.C.: Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 6-4-1999, passed by the Commissioner, Kumaun Division, and the order dated 23-6-1998, passed by the Assistant Collector/Up Zila Adhikari, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar. By the order dated 23-6-1998, the ex parte judgment and decree dated 28-6-1996 passed in the Revenue Suit No. 22/61 of 1995- 96 Gurdeep Singh Vs. Vichitra Singh and others, was set aside and the suit was restored to its original number. By order dated 6-4-1999, the revision filed against the order dated 23-6-1998 was dismissed by the revisional court. Brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, according to the petitioner, are that the petitioner instituted aforementioned Revenue Suit under Section 229 B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for correction of entries in revenue records, which were made against the Rules in Class 9 in Part II of the Khatauni and possession in column no. 5 of Khasra of the land in suit. 2 As per averments of the petitioner, summonses were issued to the respondents and the same were duly served on the private respondent nos. 3 and 4. Despite service, they did not turn up. The suit proceeded ex parte. The suit was decreed ex parte on 22-6-1996. When the fact that the suit had been decreed ex parte came to the notice of the respondent nos. 3 and 4, they filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree passed by respondent no. 2. The ground for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree raised by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 is that one of the applicants namely Tarsem Singh is an illeterate person and his signature was forged on the summons and the other respondent has also made an averment in the application that he did not put any signature on the summons. After hearing the petitioner as well as respondent nos. 3 and 4, the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was allowed for insufficient service by order dated 23-6-1998 by respondent no.2. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner preferred revision before the respondent no.1. The revision was dismissed on the same ground. The controversy to be seen in this petition is whether the application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the C.P.C. for setting aside ex parte decree was rightly allowed due to the service being insufficient on respondent nos. 3 and 4. Whether the summonses were duly served upon respondent nos. 3 and 4 or not is a finding of fact. Learned Assistant Collector (respondent no.2) in his order dated 23-6-1998 has given a categorical finding that the service was not sufficient on the respondent nos. 3 and 4. This finding of fact cannot be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It is well settled that if an ex parte 3 order was passed without hearing the other party, the party concerned has statutory right to move restoration application. The reasons mentioned by the Assistant Collector in the impugned order, on the basis of material on record, are sufficient to set aside the ex parte decree and to restore the suit to its original number. To my mind, the learned Assistant Collector has not committed any manifest error of law. Likewise, there is no perversity in the order dated 6-4-1999 passed by the revisional court. I do not find any merit in this writ petition. The same deserves to be dismissed outright. The writ petition is dismissed. However, the Assistant Collector concerned is directed to decide the Revenue Suit No. 22/61 of 1995-96 Gurdeep Singh Vs. Vichitra Singh and others, expeditiously as far as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Costs easy. Interim order dated 12-7-1999 is vacated. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP 4