IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.3756 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 26.8.2010 Ram Chander Sarwan ....Petitioner Versus Phool Kumar ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Vikram Punia, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated 25.1.2008 and that of the Appellate Court dated 19.4.2008. The respondent had filed a suit for damages against the petitioner in which proceedings the petitioner did not participate and invited ex-parte decree against him in the year 2000. He then moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings against him as also for setting aside the ex-parte decree, which was declined by virtue of the impugned orders after the courts below recorded adequate evidence in this regard and appraised the same. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was never served in the proceedings and that the presumption which has been drawn by the courts below is erroneous. He contended that C.R.No.3756 of 2008 (O&M) -2- he was never served in the proceedings and by that time the actual service was effected he had retired from service and consequently it could not have been said to be a valid service in the eyes of law. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent despite service. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the impugned order. There are two facts which go against the petitioner. One is regarding the service effected upon him of the notice under Section 80 CPC and second is that the petitioner admitted during his cross- examination while appearing as AW3 that at the relevant time he was posted as Superintendent, District Jail, Ambala where registered notice was sent to him for appearance in the proceedings pending for 9.2.1993. The said registered notice was received back with a report of refusal indicating thereby that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings pending against him and thus it cannot be said that a person of the rank of Superintendent would not be apprised of the mail which is addressed to him. It has further been noticed in the impugned orders that on 4.8.1992, 27.11.1992 and 9.2.1995 notices were ordered to be issued to the petitioner at his Delhi address where he had shifted after his retirement. All these notices were ignored by the petitioner and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that he had no knowledge of the proceedings pending against him. He was thus rightly proceeded against ex-parte and the impugned orders for the aforesaid reasons do not suffer from any infirmity. The revision C.R.No.3756 of 2008 (O&M) -3- petition is thus held to be without any merit and is dismissed. 26.8.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss