Civil Revision No.7190 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7190 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 05.08.2011 Krishan Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Smt.Sunita Rani ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgment ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** Present: Mr. Manuj Nagrath, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Bhirgu Dutt Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 26.2.2009 whereby an application filed by the petitioner for setting aside an ex-parte order of eviction dated 13.06.2003, was rejected and further an order dated 6.9.2010 whereby his appeal filed against the aforesaid order dated 26.2.2009 was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The brief facts of this petition are that respondent-landlord filed an ejectment application against the petitioner on the ground of non- payment of rent and that petitioner is a source of nuisance. The petitioner was served in the aforesaid ejectment petition on 24.1.2003. However, despite service, petitioner failed to appear in the Court and thus was proceeded exparte. Thereafter, the Rent Controller, Jalandhar passed an Civil Revision No.7190 of 2010 (O&M) 2 exparte order of eviction against the petitioner on 13.06.2003. The petitioner moved an application on 7.4.2004 for setting- aside the aforesaid order of ejectment on the ground that he has got the knowledge of passing of said order on 5.4.2004 when the warrant of possession was served upon him and was sought to be executed. It was further averred that the report of summons dated 24.1.2003 was false, as petitioner never received the summon and his signature on the aforesaid summon were forged. The application filed by the petitioner was contested by the respondent-landlord. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. “Whether there are sufficient grounds to set aside exparte decree dated 13.6.2003? OPA. 2. Relief.” After appreciating the evidence produced by the parties and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Rent Controller dismissed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The appeal filed before the Appellate Authority was also dismissed. The relevant para of the order of Appellate Authority reads thus:- “The original rent petition file was also summoned. I have perused the record of that case. The respondent was duly served for 24.1.2003, but he did not appear in the Court despite service and was absent and was proceeded exparte. Original summons, which are on the file also shows that copy of the summon alongwith copy of petition has been given to the respondent and his signatures were also obtained on the summons which also shows that the applicant/appellant was duly served in the ejectment petition. In the cross examination, Krishan Kumar denied signatures on his affidavit and his power of attorney given tot he counsel. He also denied signatures on Civil Revision No.7190 of 2010 (O&M) 3 the summons and he is denying his own signatures on the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC filed by him and the Vakalatnama given by to his counsel, which means that this witness can not be believed. On the other hand, the respondent produced Naresh Kumar, Process Server who duly proved his report. There is nothing in his cross examination to show that he has filed any false report. No expert has been examined to show that summon does not bear his signatures. Otherwise, also, there is nothing on the record why process server will make false report. As the applicant has been served personally, therefore, question of substituted service also does not arise. For setting aside exparte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, the Court is to see whether the applicant was served or not. When the applicant was duly served by summons, no ground to set aside the ex parte order is made out. Similarly, there is no issue regarding playing fraud upon the applicant nor there is cogent evidence on the record. Otherwise also, this issue is to be decided on merits. Further more there is nothing on the record that the applicant has filed any suit challenging those documents obtained from him by fraud etc.nor there is any such finding of the Court. I have also gone through the impugned order dated 26.2.2009 passed by Sh.H.S.Grewal, Addl.Civil Judge(Senior Division), Jalandhar which is correct and as per law and does not require any interference from this Court and the same is upheld. Finding no merit in this appeal, the same is dismissed. Memo of costs be prepared. Record of the lower Court be sent back and appeal filed be consigned to the record room.” A perusal of the aforesaid order would show that the process server had duly proved his report on the record. There is nothing on record to prove that he had filed any false report. Petitioner has not examined any Expert to show that the summon does not bear his signatures. Not only this in his cross examination, the petitioner has even denied his signature on the Civil Revision No.7190 of 2010 (O&M) 4 application and affidavit filed by him under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and further denied his signature on the power of attorney duly signed by him in favour of his counsel. In these circumstances, in the absence of any other evidence, the impugned order does not warrant any interference. Dismissed. 05.08.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) savita Judge