C. R. No. 2321 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 2321 of 2009 Date of Decision : April 28, 2009 Harnek Singh .... Petitioner Vs. Krishan Kumar .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. D. D. Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Harnek Singh has filed this revision petition assailing order dated 07.10.2008 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Talwandi Sabo, as affirmed in appeal by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Bathinda vide order dated 04.03.2009 (Annexure P-3). Respondent Krishan Kumar filed suit against the petitioner. In the said suit, the petitioner was proceeded ex-parte because the Process Server reported on his summons that the petitioner refused to accept the summons and therefore, the petitioner was served through affixation. Since no one appeared for the petitioner in the suit, he was proceeded ex-parte and the suit was decreed vide ex-parte judgment and decree dated 01.06.2005. The petitioner filed application on 27.01.2007 for setting aside the ex-parte C. R. No. 2321 of 2009 2 judgment and decree alleging that he was neither served personally nor through munadi i.e. by beat of drum. The respondent remained ex-parte in the said application. After recording ex-parte evidence of the petitioner, the trial court dismissed the petitioner's application vide order dated 07.10.2008 (Annexure P-2), which has been affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Court vide order dated 04.03.2009. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. The case of the petitioner in the application was that he learnt of the impugned ex-parte judgment and decree from Halqua Patwari only two weeks before the petitioner filed application in trial court for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree. However, in the witness-box, the petitioner did not state so about his knowledge. Consequently, the application filed by the petitioner was held to be time barred because the application could be moved within 30 days of passing of ex-parte judgment and decree or within 30 days from the date of acquiring knowledge. The petitioner, however, failed to lead any evidence whatsoever as to how and when he acquired knowledge of ex-parte judgment and decree. The application moved 01 year and 07 months after the passing of ex-parte judgment and decree was apparently time barred. Here, it has also to be noticed with significance that the petitioner did not even examine as witness the Halqua Patwari, from whom the petitioner had allegedly learnt about the ex-parte judgment and decree. It can, therefore, be rightly presumed that the petitioner had knowledge of the ex-parte judgment and decree since inception. In addition to the aforesaid, the petitioner led evidence that he was not even served through munadi. However, it was not even the report of Process Server that the petitioner was served through munadi. As per report, the petitioner was rather served through affixation of summons at his C. R. No. 2321 of 2009 3 place after the petitioner allegedly refused to accept the same. The petitioner has neither alleged nor led evidence to the effect that he was never served by affixation of summons at his place. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed. April 28, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE