C. R. No. 72 OF 2008. Present : Mr.Hemen Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. ******* Challenge in this revision petition is to the order, dated 4.10.2007, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa, setting aside the orders, dated 16.2.1996 and 12.12.1996, taking exparte proceedings against the respondents, as also the exparte judgment and decree, dated 26.3.1998. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the exparte orders and judgment and decree have been set aside, after a period of almost 10 years. As the respondents were aware of the pendency of the proceedings, the learned trial Court erred in setting aside the exparte orders and the judgment and decree on the grounds that registered notices were not served and publication was effected in a newspaper that did not have circulation in Sangrur. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book. I find no error of jurisdiction or of law as would warrant interference by this Court with the impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that for the purpose of effecting service, publication was effected in “Dainik Mewat”, a newspaper published from Gurgaon. AW1-Deen Dayal, Manager of this newspaper appeared before the trial Court and admitted that his newspaper had no circulation in District Sangrur. The respondents, admittedly, reside in Sangrur (Punjab). Thus, it is apparent that the alleged service, by publication in a newspaper that had no circulation in Sangrur (Punjab), was C.R No.72 of 2008 : 2 : inherently defective. The Court below, therefore, rightly set aside the exparte orders, as also the exparte judgment and decree. Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed. However, as the suit has been pending for about a decade, the learned trial Court shall make every endeavour to conclude the trial within one year from the next date of hearing. ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) January 09, 2008. JUDGE `kk'