CR No. 2760 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2760 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.5.2009 Rajbir and others .. Petitioners v. Satish Kumar and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. R.S. Sihota, Senior Advocate with Mr. B. R. Rana, Advocate for the petitioners. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 21.4.2009, passed by the learned court below, whereby order dated 16.1.2007 passed by the learned trial court dismissing the application for setting aside of ex-parte order dated 6.2.1995 and ex-parte judgment and decree dated 6.5.1999, was set aside. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction on 4.1.1995, in which the respondents were directed to be proceeded against ex -parte on 6.2.1995 and ex-parte judgment and decree was passed in favour of the petitioners on 6.5.1999. Having come to know about the ex- parte judgment and decree, application for setting aside thereof was filed by respondents on 22.9.2001. The learned trial court dismissed the application. However, the learned lower appellate court reversed the order passed by the trial court. It is this order, which is impugned in the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the present case, the respondents, who had initially refused to accept the summons, were directed to be served through substituted service and inspite of that, they did not put in appearance. In such situation, they were rightly proceeded against ex-parte. The ex-parte judgment and decree was passed on 6.5.1999. Application for setting aside thereof was filed only on 22.9.2001, which was highly belated. Once that is so, the learned court below had gone wrong in reversing the order passed by the trial court dismissing the application for setting aside of ex-parte order and CR No. 2760 of 2009 [2] judgment and decree. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The facts of the case reveal that proceedings in the present case were not free from suspicion. The suit was filed on 4.1.1995. As is noticed, on 8.1.1995, the respondents are reported to have refused receipt of notice. On 16.1.1995, application under Order 5 Rule 20 CPC for substituted service was allowed and thereafter on 6.2.1995, just after one month of filing of the suit, the respondents were directed to be proceeded against ex-parte. The decree was passed on 6.5.1999 directing the revenue authorities to correct the revenue entries in the column of possession and the respondents were restrained from dispossessing the petitioners from the suit land. Learned counsel for the petitioners did not dispute the fact that the petitioners inspite of having decree in their favour did not immediately file application for getting the revenue entries corrected in terms of the decree. In these circumstances, reliance by the learned court below on the fact that the respondents came to know about the decree on 23.8.2001, when Gian Chand Sharma, elder brother of the respondents had gone to Tehsil for some work, where he came to know about the decree in terms of which the petitioners had approached the revenue authorities for correction of khasra girdawari, cannot be said to be misplaced. It was further noticed that Har Dutt, Process Server, who had served the respondents by the process of Munadi was a relative of the petitioners. In the evidence, the petitioners tried to conceal their relationship with Har Dutt, but was admitted by him. Other relevant evidence, which was referred to by the learned court below while setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree is the statement of RW5- Ram Singh Chowkidar, who stated that the respondents never refused to receive the summons. He further stated that his signatures on the summons and Munadi were obtained by the Process Server without reading over the contents to him. Even other witness, RW1-Banwari Lal, stated that he had signed the summons of Munadi on the representation of Process Server that he had already got the Munadi effected, meaning thereby even Munadi was not effected in his presence. Besides this, other contradictions in the evidence led by the petitioners in the court below were noticed in detail, which did not inspire confidence in the proceedings, vide which the respondents were proceeded against ex-parte and accordingly, the ex-parte order and the decree were set aside. While concurring with the view expressed by the learned court below, I do not find any reason to interfere therewith as nothing has been pointed out on record which could enable this Court to take a view contrary to what has been taken by the learned court below. CR No. 2760 of 2009 [3] Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 15.5.2009 mk