Civil Revision No.3876 of 2009(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.3876 of 2009(O&M) Decided on : November 25, 2009 Munna @ Ram Gopal ... Petitioner VERSUS Rajender and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Ashok Tyagi, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This defendant's revision petition against the order dated 5.5.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Faridabad, dismissing his appeal against the order dated 29.5.2008 passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.),. Palwal, dismissing the application of the petitioner – defendant (herein referred as `the petitioner') for setting aside the exparte decree dated 4.12.1999. A civil suit No.724 of 10.9.1998, titled “Rajinder vs. Munna alias Ram Gopal” was filed in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Palwal, wherein, the petitioner was proceeded exparte by virtue of the order dated 24.11.1998 and ultimately an exparte decree was passed on 4.12.1999. The application for setting aside the exparte decree was Civil Revision No.3876 of 2009(O&M) [ 2 ] filed after about two years i.e, on 10.8.2001. The argument set up by the petitioner is that he was not duly served with the summons and was not in the notice of the proceedings, pending against him. The petitioner pleads that he came to know about the exparte judgment and decree on 7.8.2001, but he has not mentioned the source, as to from whom he came to know about the exparte decree. No such person has been examined, from whom he derived the knowledge of the fact. While appearing as AW1 Munna Lal, the petitioner – judgment debtor, during his cross-examination recorded on 23.2.2006, admitted that he came to know about the pendency of the suit about 7/8 years back, from where, we could derive the fact that he had knowledge of the proceedings before the exparte decree was passed. As regards service, the petitioner's own witness Mool Chand (AW3), who is the Process Server, has admitted that the summons to be served upon him were for 24.11.1998 and when he (the witness) went to serve the summons, the petitioner refused to accept the same in the presence of Rajender Sharma. All this goes to show that the petitioner had the knowledge of the proceedings prior to the passing of the exparte decree. He did not intentionally appear and, rather, allowed himself to be proceeded exparte. He filed the application for setting aside the exparte decree after about two years of the passing of the same and no proper explanation has come forth for this huge delay. Even otherwise, no sufficient evidence was led to substantiate his plea that he was not properly served. So far as the argument that the copy of the plaint was not Civil Revision No.3876 of 2009(O&M) [ 3 ] affixed along with the summons at his door step, it is without any force as according to Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, mere irregularity in service of summons could not be the sole ground for setting the exparte decree. Thus, finding no illegality in the impugned order, the petition is dismissed. November 25, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE