IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7328 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 14.12.2009 Yogesh Jain .....Petitioner versus Punjab and Sind Bank and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Saurabh Chugh, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 24.9.2009 whereby an application under Order 9 Rule 11 CPC, moved by the petitioner-defendant No.1 to set-aside the ex-parte proceedings dated 28.1.2004, has been dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Abohar. [2] The respondent No.1-Bank has filed a suit for recovery of Rs,1,05,148/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum with penal interest @ 2% per annum with quarterly rests from the date of filing of their suit till the realization of the decretal amount, against the petitioner and his parents who have been impleaded as defendants No.2 & 3 in the aforesaid suit. C.R. No.7328 of 2009 (O&M) 2 [3] The impugned order reveals that pursuant to the notices issued to the defendants they were duly served. Firstly, the father of the petitioner, namely, Vimal Jain-defendant No.2, did not appear despite service and was proceeded against ex-parte on 23.9.2003. However, fresh summons were issued to petitioner-defendant No.1 but he refused to accept the same and consequently service was effected by affixation and due to non-appearance, the petitioner was also proceeded against ex-parte. The mother of the petitioner, namely, defendant No.3, however, put in appearance on 22.5.2004 and is contesting the suit. After a period of 4-5 years, the petitioner moved an application to recall the ex-parte order dated 28.1.2004, alleging that he was never served and had come to know about pendency of the suit only when he came to the Courts to attend some other case. [4] The Civil Court has dismissed the application after observing that the summons were duly served upon the petitioner which were received back with the report that he refused to receive the same. The Process Server also made a statement on oath to this effect. The trial court has taken notice of the fact that the petitioner and his parents are residing at the same address, therefore, it is unbelievable that the petitioner did not come to know about pendency of the recovery suit when his mother had already put in appearance through counsel on 22.5.2004. The trial Court has concluded and rightly so that the application has been moved by the petitioner as a delaying tactics and lacks bonafide. C.R. No.7328 of 2009 (O&M) 3 [5] When this revision petition came up for preliminary hearing or even today, the petitioner was given offer to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- so that his bonafide could be tested. It is to be noticed here that the recovery suit was filed by the respondent-bank in the year 2003 and even if the element of penal interest is excluded, yet in the event of decretal of the suit, the amount is likely to be more than Rs.4,00,000/- or so. The petitioner, however, expressed his inability to deposit the said amount as he is willing to deposit a sum of Rs.60,000/- only. [6] In such state of affairs, no case to interfere with the impugned order dated 24.9.2009 is made out by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. [7] Dismissed. 14-12-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE