IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 447 of 2010 Date of decision: 28.12.2010. M/s R.K.Dogra …Petitioner. Versus Baldev Thakur …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Vikas Mishra, Advocate. For the respondent: None. Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgement dated 17.5.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala. 2. No second appeal lies against the said judgement and decree since valuation of the suit is less than Rs.25,000/-. The only legal point in issue is whether the petitioner (here-in-after referred to as the defendant) was properly served in proceedings before the learned trial Court and the order dated 11.09.2006 whereby he was proceeded against ex-parte is legal or valid. 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 3. The learned lower Appellate Court has noted that firstly the case was fixed for service of the petitioner on 14.08.2006. The process server went thrice to the house of the petitioner on 27.7.2006, 28.7.2006 and 5.8.2006 but he was not found there. Thereafter, the case was fixed again for service of the petitioner- defendant on 11.09.2006. The record reveals that firstly when the process server went to serve the defendant he was told that the defendant is at Delhi and would be returning after five days. The process server again went after five days on 1.9.2006 but the defendant refused to accept the summons and this fact was noted by the process server on the reverse of the summons and this fact was witnessed by Shri Subhash Chand, Up Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. Thereafter, the process server affected service by affixing the copy of the summons on the door of the house of the present petitioner. It would be pertinent to mention that the process server appeared as RW-1 in proceedings under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC and he has stated on oath the facts mentioned here-in- above. Therefore, the version of the petitioner that he was not available at that time at his house and was wrongly proceeded against ex-parte does not appear to be correct. In any event, this is a question of fact which 3 cannot be interfered in these proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petition is dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. 28th December, 2010 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge