Civil Revision No.1667 of 2009(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.1667 of 2009(O&M) Decided on : July 07, 2009 Krishan ... Petitioner VERSUS Nafe Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Sunil Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This revision petition is directed against the order dated 1.12.2006 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Safidon, whereby the application of the petitioner – defendant (herein referred as `the defendant) for setting aside the exparte order and decree was dismissed. The plaintiff – respondent (herein referred as `the plaintiff') filed Suit No.25 of 28.4.2000, which was decreed exparte on 2.6.2000. The application for setting the aside the said exparte decree was filed on 7.10.2004 by the defendant, who is none-else but the son of the plaintiff and both of them were living in the same village. The defendant submitted that his father (plaintiff) had contracted second marriage and had started torturing him. Ultimately, at the instance of second wife, he was turned out, therefore, he started living at Civil Revision No.1667 of 2009(O&M) [ 2 ] village Kiloi, District Rohtak. The plaintiff by giving a false address obtained an exparte decree against him, about which he came to know only on 26.9.2004 when he was working in the fields. Thereafter, he made enquiries and then moved the application. On the said application, the following issues were framed:- “1. Whether the applicant was not duly served in civil suit titled as `Nafe Singh vs. Krishan Kumar? OPA 2. Whether the judgment and decree dated 5.3.2004 is liable to be set aside under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC? OPA 3. Whether the application of the applicant is barred by limitation? OPR 4. Relief.” The defendant failed to lead any evidence before the Trial Court, much less he could not examine himself in support of the allegations as set up by him in the application, therefore, the application was dismissed under Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, this revision petition. Having scrutinised the averments, it is observed that the plaintiff and defendant are father and son and, thus, the defendant must be having the knowledge of the exparte decree passed by the Civil Court, but he did not come forward to set aside the exparte decree for four years and six months. No reasons to condone the said delay have been assigned or proved. Civil Revision No.1667 of 2009(O&M) [ 3 ] The defendant failed to establish by any evidence that he was not living at the address as given by the plaintiff in the earlier suit or that he was not duly served. He, himself could not dare to step into the witness box in order to support his own cause. In the circumstances, finding no merit in the petition, the same is hereby dismissed. ( A.N.JINDAL ) JUDGE July 07, 2009 `gian'