ORDER :

1. The instant civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by the petitioner-defendant of Civil Original Suit No. 63/2007, whose application filed under Order IX, Rule 13 of C.P.C. for setting aside ex-parte Judgment & Decree dated 03.07.2009 was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar vide Order dated 15.09.2017 passed in Civil Misc. Case No. 76/2011 (Banwari Lal Vs. Smt. Sarita Bishnoi & ors.). The appeal filed by the defendant-petitioner against the same was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar vide Order dated 04.09.2021 passed in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 24/2017 (Banwari Lal Vs. Smt. Sarita Bishnoi & anr.).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs (respondents herein) filed an eviction suit against the defendant – Banwari Lal (petitioner herein) on 18.09.2007. On 29.09.2007, the summon was issued to the defendant for 17.11.2007, which was returned unserved with the report that the defendant was not found in the house, however, his adult son was found present, who refused to receive the summon, then the same was affixed on the house of the defendant. On 04.01.2008, without assigning any reason for not relying upon the said report, the trial court again issued summon to the defendant Banwari Lal for 16.02.2008, which was returned unserved with the report that the house of the defendant was found locked. On third occasion, the summon issued for 09.05.2008, which was returned with the following report :-

^^Jheku th] jkedqekj lokj D.J. dksVZ Jh xaxkuxj esa gYQh;k fjiksVZ djrk gwWa fd eSus fn- 29@2@08 dks ntZ irs ij tkdj eSaus Jh cuokjhyky iq= Jh uRFkwjke fo'uksbZ dks ryk'k fd;k edku ij Jh cuokjhyky dh iRuh feyh mlus viuk uke deyknsoh crk;k Jh cuokjhyky dks dgh tkuk o 'kkehy jguk crk;k uksVhl ÁkIrh ds fy, dgk rks uksVhl ÁkIrh ls bUdkj fd;k bUdkjh djus ij uksVhl e; okn udy [kqys edku ij pLik fd;k ekSds ij fdlh us xokgh ugha fd iRuh }kjk bUdkjh ij pLik fjiksVZ Jheku th fd lsok esa is'k gSA**

3. On the basis of above report, service of summon upon the defendant was treated sufficient and on account of non-appearance of the defendant, ex-parte proceedings were initiated against him on 09.05.2008. Afterwards, the case was adjourned for six times for recording ex-parte evidence of the plaintiffs. On 18.04.2009, ex-parte evidence was recorded and after hearing the arguments on 15.05.2009, ex-parte decree was passed against the defendant on 03.07.2009. Aggrieved with ex-parte judgment and decree, the defendant filed an application under Order IX, Rule 13 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. on 19.11.2011 alleging that report of the process server was false. The defendant came to know about ex-parte decree on 08.11.2011 when Najir of the Court tried to proceed against him. The application was replied by the plaintiffs. The trial court after recording the evidence of both the parties, dismissed the application of the defendant filed under Order IX, Rule 13 of C.P.C. vide Order dated 15.09.2017. The trial court relied upon the report of the process server and found that there was no irregularity in the service of summon against the defendant. The objection of the defendant-petitioner to the effect that house number was not mentioned on the summon, was not accepted. The trial court observed that wife of the defendant was Ward Member since the year 2009 and the name of the colony was specifically mentioned on the summon. The trial court also took note of the previous reports on the summons issued against the defendant. Aggrieved with the order of rejection of the application, the defendant filed an appeal before the appellate court bearing Civil Misc. Appeal No. 24/2017, which was also dismissed on 04.09.2021, which is impugned in this revision petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders impugned as well as record of the courts below.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the