JUDGMENT :

By way of this petition, filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner herein assails order dated 10.12.2018, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Una, District Una, H.P., in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.307VI2017, titled as Raj Rani Versus Seeta Devi, vide which an application filed by the petitioner, under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside judgment and decree passed against her was dismissed, as well as the judgment dated 07.06.2019, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge,1, Una, District Una, H.P., in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.01 of 2019, titled as Raj Rani Versus Seeta Devi alias Surjit Kaur, whereby the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal preferred by the present petitioner against the rejection of the application by the learned Trial Court was also dismissed.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the respondent herein filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the parties i.e. the respondent and the petitioner were joint owners-in-possession in equal share of the suit land being daughters of Rattan Chand and that Will dated 22.07.2009 alleged to have been executed by deceased Rattan Chand was illegal, null and void, inoperative and ineffective. Vide order dated 21.08.2012, the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte in the Civil Suit. An ex parte decree was passed in favour of the petitioner and against the defendant by the learned Trial Court on 10.04.2017.

3. The petitioner preferred an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for setting aside order dated 21.08.2012, vide which she was proceeded against ex parte by the learned Trial Court, as well as the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court on 10.04.2017, which was ex parte. Alongwith this application, one more application was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, praying for condonation of delay in filing the application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned Trial Court after allowing the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and by condoning the delay in filing the application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, dismissed the application filed under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure vide order dated 10.12.2018. The order in appeal has been upheld by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 07.06.2019.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this Revision Petition.

5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Trial Court erred in proceeding against the petitioner, who was the defendant before the learned Trial Court, ex-parte by ignoring the fact that the defendant was never served during the proceedings in the Civil Suit. He submits that this extremely important aspect of the matter has been completely ignored by the learned Court below while dismissing the application filed for recalling the ex-parte judgment and decree. As per him, as this has caused great injustice to the petitioner, therefore, this Revision Petition be allowed and the ex-parte judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below be set aside by also setting aside the orders which stand impugned by way of this Revision Petition. Learned Counsel has also argued that the intent of the respondent/plaintiff to mislead the Court is further borne out from the fact that wrong address and wrong parentage of the defendant, i.e. the present petitioner was mentioned in the memo of parties of the suit filed before the learned Trial Court.

6. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent has argued that the application filed under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rightly dismissed by the learned Trial Court by assigning the reasons which stand mentioned therein, as it is clearly borne out from the record that the defendant did put in appearance befo