IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.347 of 2009 Rabindra Kumar Versus Meena Devi ---------------------------------- 3. 13.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. By the impugned order the Court below has set aside the ex parte decree passed in T.S. No. 64 of 1996 and has restored the suit to its original file and number. The Court below has recorded the finding that the summons had not been served upon the defendant. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the defendant had full knowledge of the suit but she deliberately avoided the appearance in order to harass the plaintiff as the suit was for specific performance of contract for enforcement of an agreement or sale. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party has submitted that the defendant had genuinely no knowledge of the suit and had no intention to harass the petitioner. After perusing the impugned order and considering the submissions of the parties, it appears that the Court below has recorded the finding of fact that the summons were not served upon the defendant in the suit 2 and as such there is no scope for interference in the said finding of facts in the writ jurisdiction. However, as the suit is of the year 1996, the learned Court below is directed to take up the proceeding of the suit expeditiously and dispose it of preferably within six months from the date of receipt/production of this order. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties have agreed to co-operate in the hearing of the suit and avoid unnecessary adjournment. However, this order will be subject to payment of a cost of Rs. 2000/- (two thousand) to the plaintiff by the defendant in the Court below itself which shall be deposited in the Court below on the next date fixed in the suit after the receipt / production of this order in the Court below. The revision application is dismissed with the aforesaid observations and directions. Saif/- (V. Nath, J.)