IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 4 of 2010 Date of decision: 14.6.2011 Bikramjit ….Petitioner. Versus Piar Chand and others ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. N.S.Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. _________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8.9.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (1), Kangra at Dharamshala dismissing the appeal of the present petitioner and upholding the order of the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Court No.2, Palampur dated 15.6.2005 whereby he rejected the application filed by Shri Gian Chand father of the present petitioner for setting-aside the ex-parte decree. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Mehar Chand, Jagat Ram and Vinod Kumar, who were the plaintiffs filed a suit against Gian Chand, predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner. The suit was decided ex-parte against 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 Gian Chand on 1.6.1995. Thereafter, an application for setting-aside the ex-parte proceedings was filed on 24.6.1999 before the learned trial Court in which it was alleged that the applicant Gian Chand was not aware about the pendency of the suit and came to know about the decree passed in favour of the respondents only on 24.5.1999. It was also alleged that Gian Chand was not properly served in the suit since no copy of the plaint was served upon him. The Courts below rejected the application mainly on the ground that the application is barred by limitation. 3. For the sake of this petition, I shall proceed on the basis that Gian Chand was not properly served in this case. Even if that be accepted, the fact is that Gian Chand himself had filed an application for correction of the revenue entries before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. This application was decided in his favour. Thereafter, the plaintiffs (respondents here-in) filed an appeal in the Court of the Collector, Palampur. During the proceeding before the Collector, Palampur, the respondents herein placed on record a copy of the ex-parte judgement and decree of the learned trial Court 3 and relying upon this ex-parte judgement and decree the Collector decided the appeal in favour of the present respondents on 14.09.1998. At the time when this appeal was decided the petitioner was duly represented by his counsel Shri David Peter, Advocate and in the judgement itself there is reference to the judgement passed in Civil Suit No. 12 of 1995 dated 1.6.1995. Therefore, the petitioner is presumed to have knowledge of this judgement and decree when it was filed before the Collector on 14.09.1998. Earlier to this mutation No. 242 was rejected on 25.2.1997 in the presence of the petitioner and there is reference in that order to this very judgement. Therefore, the petitioner was aware about the judgement much prior to 24.5.1999 and did not tell the Court the truth when he filed the application for setting-aside ex-parte proceedings. 4. Therefore, both the Courts below were justified in holding that the application was barred by limitation. I find no jurisdictional error in the orders of the Courts below. The petition is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. 14th June, 2011 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge.