Mr. Prakash Gupta, J.

1. By this revision petition under Section 115 CPC, the petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 31st October, 2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Sikar in Civil Misc. Case No. 34 of 2003 whereby the application filed by the non-petitioner under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC has been accepted.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit against the non-petitioner for eviction and recovery of arrears of the rent due on the ground of default in payment of rent and non-user of the shop in dispute which was decreed by the trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 25th January, 2002. The said decree was executed as the possession of the disputed shop was handed over to the petitioner by the Nazir on 15th February, 2003. After that the non-petitioner filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC in the trial court for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 25th January, 2002. The application was opposed by the petitioner.

3. Both the parties adduced oral evidence in support of their respective case and the learned trial court vide order dated 31st October, 2007 allowed the application filed by the non-petitioner under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC on the cost of Rs.500/- and set aside the ex-parte decree and judgment dated 25th January, 2002.

4. Hence, the present revision petition.

5. It is submitted by Shri Ashok Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial court has committed serious illegality and irregularity while allowing the application filed by the non-petitioner under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC by misreading the evidence available on record regarding service of summon. The trial court has not properly considered this aspect of the matter that Manoj Kumar (AW-2), process-server has clearly stated that the non-petitioner was found at the house and refused to accept the notice and when he tried to affix the same on the house, he obstructed the same. He made an endorsement on the summon (Ex.3A) in this regard in the presence of two persons namely; Nitin Kumar Tata and Swaroop Chand Patni. Therefore, it is clear that the non-petitioner had knowledge about filing of the suit. It is further submitted by Shri Mishra that the degree of proof in such matters is very high and it was for the non-petitioner to prove by strong evidence that he was not duly served with the summon and the court proceeded ex party illegally. In the instant case, the non-petitioner has totally failed to discharge his obligation by adducing proper and cogent evidence. It is also submitted by him that the learned trial court has committed material irregularity and jurisdictional error in treating the application within limitation. He further contended that once the process server delivered a copy of the summons and a copy of the plaint to the defendant and if the defendant refused to sign the other copy of the summons in token of acceptance of service, it is clear that the provisions of law regarding service of summons had been complied within in substance and it could not be held that summons was not duly served. It was not obligatory on the court to comply with the provisions of Order 5, Rule 17 CPC when the defendant refused to accept service of process. It is then submitted that from the report of process server it is clear that service of summons was resisted by the defendant then it must be deemed to be sufficient service. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgments of the Punjab High Court in Rishi Kesh Badri Parshad v. Nath Hargu Lal (AIR 1957 Punjab 38) and judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in K. Panchakshara Reddy v. N. Krishna Reddy (AIR 1969 Andhra Pradesh 67).

6. On the other hand, Shri Rajendra Soni, learned counsel for the non-petitioner has supported the impugned order passed by the trial court. Pointing out towards the evidence Deepak Kumar (NAW.1), Sanwar Mal (NAW.2) and Manoj Kumar (AW.2) learned counsel for the n