HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.3967 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 09.11.2009 **** Omi @ Om Parkash and others . . . . Petitioners VS. Babu Lal & Others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** Present: Mr. Anish Sethia, Advocate for the petitioners ***** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) (1). This revision petition is directed by the defendants against whom a Civil Suit for permanent injunction was decreed ex parte on 04.04.1998 and their application to set aside the said ex parte decree has been dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palwal vide the impugned order dated 06.05.2008 which has been further upheld by the First Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 20.10.2008. (2). While dismissing the petitioner’s application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, the learned Civil Court has categorically held that no cogent evidence whatsoever, has been led to prove that they were not served. As against it, the respondent/decree- holders have proved on record that the petitioners avoided their service through summons and a report of Process Server to this effect was submitted to the Civil Court on 13.06.1996. Thereafter, the petitioners were served by way of substituted service, namely, Munadi, which was held on 13.08.1996. Despite that the petitioners did not turn up before the Civil Court. The parties being the residents of same village, it is hard to believe that the petitioners did not come to know about the Munadi held to effect service on them. The onus to produce the non-service or produce the Process Server to show that no attempt was ever made to effect service, was on the petitioners which they have failed to discharge. (3). No interference with the impugned orders dated 06.05.2008 and 28.10.2008 passed by the Courts below is, therefore, called for. (4). Dismissed. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 09.11.2009 vishal shonkar