The Revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.328 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anantapur, which was decreed ex parte by judgment dated 21.10.2002.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 15.07.2008 in C.MANo.5 of 2007 on the file of the Court of I-Add!. District Judge, Anantapur, whereunder the order passed by the trial Court dismissing the defendant's application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree in O.S.No.328 of 2002 was confirmed.

3. The facts, in brief, are as under:

The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.328 of 2002 for specific performance of the Agreement of Sale dated 18.04.1994 executed by the defendant in respect of the suit schedule property and to put him in possession of the said property after evicting the tenants therefrom. The said suit was decreed ex parte by judgment dated 21.10.2002. Pursuant thereto, the plaintiff filed E.P.No.12 of 2003 for execution of the decree and consequently a Registered Sale Deed dated 26.09.2003 was executed through the Court, and possession was also delivered to the plaintiff.

4. While so, on 01.12.2004 the defendant filed I.A.No.140 of 2005 under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree dated 21.10.2002 on the ground that the suit summons were not served on him. It was also pleaded that he came to know of the ex parte decree only in the month of November, 2004. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff denying the plea that the defendant was not served with suit summons and that he had no knowledge of the ex parte decree. The Court below, after hearing both the parties, by order, dated 27.01.2007, dismissed I.A.No.140 of 2005.

Aggrieved by the same, the defendant/ Revision petitioner filed C.MANo.5 of 2007 in the Court of the I-Addl. District Judge, Anantapur. The said Appeal was dismissed by judgment dated 15.7.2008 thereby confirming the order of the trial Court dated 27.01.2007. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition by the defendant.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

6. The specific plea of the defendant in I.A.No.140 of 2005 was that the suit summons were not served on him. It was also pleaded that he left Anantapur in the month of November, 1994 and since then he was staying at Visakhapatnam and recently six months back he had shifted to Hyderabad. It was also pleaded that he came to Anantapur for Deepavali in the month of November, 2004 to see his ailing mother and that was his first visit to Anantapur after he left Anantapur in the year 1994. During his stay at Anantapur, on 12.11.2004 he came to know about the ex parte decree dated 21.10.2002 in O.S.No.328 of 2002 and immediately within 30 days from the date of his knowledge he filed I.A.No.140 of 2005 under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. on 01.12.2004. It was also contended that he did not execute any Agreement of Sale in favour of the plaintiff at any point of time and the suit agreement of sale was a rank forgery and the suit was filed by the plaintiff taking advantage of his absence from Anantapur with an intention to grab the suit schedule property. It was also alleged that the plaintiff had deliberately taken suit summons to a wrong address at Chennai though he never resided at Chennai at the relevant point of time. It was also alleged that there was no postal acknowledgement with his signature and that the suit was decreed ex parte without service of summons on him.

7. The plaintiff filed a counter stating that the defendant had refused to receive the suit summons when they were tendered to him and that the defendant's allegation that he did not receive the suit summons and there was no acknowledgement in the suit bundle was not correct. The allegation made by the defendant that the suit summons were sent to a wrong address deliberately was denied and it was stated that the defendant failed to contest even the execution petition and the possession of the suit sche