IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1420 of 2006 JAGAT NARAYAN SINGH Versus GONOUR SINGH ----------- 3. 18.11.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the opposite party. The view taken by the court below in the impugned order while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. that not only there was a valid service of notice but the petitioner also had full knowledge of such ex-parte decree coupled with the fact that the evidence recorded in course of such proceeding under Order 9 Rule 13 the plaintiff landlord had remained uncontroverted in absence of any cross-examination, would leave nothing for this Court to take a different view as with regard to the petitioner abandoning the suit or not appearing the suit eviction of his own volition. The aforesaid view was also reiterated by the lower appellate court and the order of the lower court was reaffirmed. Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that true it is that there was a service report in form of Ext.A but the trial court never made an 2 effort to find out as to whether the signature thereon of was that of the petitioner or not. Unfortunately no such plea was taken before the court below contesting the correctness of service report of summons as contained in Ext A on the ground that the same did not bear the signature of the petitioner. That being so, the petitioner cannot be allowed to take a new ground before this Court, especially when he failed to raise the same either before the trial court or before the lower appellate court. This Court would, therefore, find no merit in this civil revision application and the same is dismissed. This Court keeping into account that the court below awaiting result of this civil revision application filed on 19.8.2006 had not proceeded further for effecting delivery of possession, would direct that in case the petitioner does not handover making possession of the premises in question within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order it would take speedy 3 steps for delivery of possession by disposing of the execution case already filed by the landlord opposite party, who is represented by Mr. Shivendra Kishore Thakur before this Court. With the aforementioned observation, this application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/