IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6401 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision 16.07.2009 Ram Saran ......Petitioner VERSUS Desh Raj and another ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Ms.Bhupinder Kaur, Advocate, for Mr.Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajvir Sehrawat, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): This revision petition, preferred by the petitioner-plaintiff (herein referred as 'the petitioner') is directed against the order dated 03.10.2007, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, whereby the application for setting aside exparte decree was accepted and the Court allowed the trial to proceed. The main grievance of the petitioner is that since the defendant No.1-respondent had refused to accept the service, therefore, he would be treated to be duly served. Even, otherwise, the application for setting aside exparte decree, after six years of the decree, was not maintainable. Heard. Decree in this case was passed on 13.01.2003 whereas the application for setting aside ex-parte decree had been filed on 31.01.2003 i.e. just after 18 days of the passing of the decree. It is also to be highlighted that in the instant case defendant No.1 was not duly served as the process server recorded in his report that the defendant No.1 had refused Civil Revision No.6401 of 2007 (O&M) -2- to accept the service but the report is not witnessed by any witness. No substituted service was effected. In these circumstances, the defendant No.1 cannot be said to be duly served. In any case, the application has been filed within 30 days of the passing of the decree, therefore, it is sufficient ground to set aside the exparte decree. As such, finding no merit in this revision petition, the same is dismissed. This revision petition, preferred by the petitioner- plaintiff (herein referred as 'the petitioner') is directed against the order dated 03.10.2007, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, whereby the application for setting aside exparte decree was accepted and the Court allowed the trial to proceed. The main grievance of the petitioner is that since the defendant No.1-respondent had refused to accept the service, therefore, he would be treated to be duly served. Even, otherwise, the application for setting aside exparte decree, after six years of the decree, was not maintainable. Heard. Decree in this case was passed on 13.01.2003 whereas the application for setting aside ex-parte decree had been filed on 31.01.2003 i.e. just after 18 days of the passing of the decree. It is also to be highlighted that in the instant case defendant No.1 was not duly served as the process server recorded in his report that the defendant No.1 had refused Civil Revision No.6401 of 2007 (O&M) -2- to accept the service but the report is not witnessed by any witness. No substituted service was effected. In these circumstances, the defendant No.1 cannot be said to be duly served. In any case, the application has been filed within 30 days of the passing of the decree, therefore, it is sufficient ground to set aside the exparte decree. As such, finding no merit in this revision petition, the same is dismissed. This revision petition, preferred by the petitioner-plaintiff (herein referred as 'the petitioner') is directed against the order dated 03.10.2007, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, whereby the application for setting aside exparte decree was accepted and the Court allowed the trial to proceed. The main grievance of the petitioner is that since the defendant No.1-respondent had refused to accept the service, therefore, he would be treated to be duly served. Even, otherwise, the application for setting aside exparte decree, after six years of the decree, was not maintainable. Heard. Decree in this case was passed on 13.01.2003 whereas the application for setting aside ex-parte decree had been filed on 31.01.2003 i.e. just after 18 days of the passing of the decree. It is also to be highlighted that in the instant case defendant No.1 was not duly served as the process server recorded in his report that the defendant No.1 had refused Civil Revision No.6401 of 2007 (O&M) -2- to accept the service but the report is not witnessed by any witness. No substituted service was effected. In these circumstances, the defendant No.1 cannot be said to be duly served. In any case, the application has been filed within 30 days of the passing of the decree, therefore, it is sufficient ground to set aside the exparte decree. As such, finding no merit in this revision petition, the same is dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 16.07.2009 mamta-II This petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents with a view to imparting complete justice to the parties and to save huge expenses which may be occurred by the respondents as also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter. If, still dissatisfied, the respondents may move this Court for recalling this order.