M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. This civil revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by defendant No. 2--petitioner challenging the judgment xand order dated 8.6.2006 passed by District Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Misc. Appeal No. 4 of 2005 by which he has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order dated 21.6.2005 passed by the Mun-sif, Chaibasa in Misc. Case No. 17 of 2003 rejecting the petitioners application under Order IX Rule 13, CPC for setting aside exparte decree passed in Title Suit No. 2 of 1997.

2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: The plaintiff-opposite party filed Title Suit No. 2 of 1997 for declaration of right, title and interest and for confirmation of possession and in the alternative, for recovery of possession of the suit land after holding that the Municipal Survey Settlement Entry in respect of the suit land in the name of the defendant-petitioner finally published in 1973 is wrong and erroneous and the same ought to have been recorded in the name of the plaintiff. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 18.2.1999. The petitioners case is that he came to know about the ex parte decree for the first time on 10.11.2003 from his neighbour who informed him about the Execution Case No. 09 of 1999 pending in the Court of Munsif for delivery of possession. The petitioner on receipt of the information, made an inquiry on 11.11.2003 and came to know about the suit and the ex parte decree passed on 18.2.1999. The petitioner accordingly made an application under Order IX, Rule 13 for setting aside exparte decree which was registered as Misc. Case No. 17 of 2003. The said Misc. Case was dismissed by the Munsif holding that summon was duly served on the petitioner (defendant No. 20). The petitioner then preferred appeal before the District Judge, Chaibasa being Misc. Appeal No. 4 of 2005 which was dismissed and the order of Munsif was confirmed.

3. Mr. M.K. Dey, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the suit was filed by the plaintiff-O.P. against the petitioner as defendant No. 2 and his mother Mrs. Sipora Smith as defendant No. 1. Learned Counsel submitted that the petitioners father died in the year 1950 and thereafter, his mother (defendant No. 1) got herself remarried in the year 1952 and she ceased to be the widow of his father. After her remarriage, the petitioner, who was in Railways service, started living separately from defendant No. 1 and settled at Kol-kata. The petitioner, therefore, had no knowledge about the institution of the suit since he did not receive any summon of the suit.

4. Mr. M.S. Anwar, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff O.P., on the other hand, submitted that the mother of the petitioner received summon on behalf of her son-petitioner also. Learned Counsel submitted that PW 2 admitted in his evidence that petitioners daughter is living in Kolkata and that one Ibraham Bhengra, who informed the petitioner about the ex parte decree, has not been examined. Learned Counsel further submitted that defendant No. 1, who is mother of the petitioner, has also not been examined.

5. I have heard learned Counsels appearing for the parties and perused the record. In the order passed by the Munsif, the factum of death of the petitioners father in 1950 and thereafter defendant No. 1 remarried with another person in 1952 has not been disbelieved by the Munsif, but he held that the receipt of petitioners summon by his mother is a valid service of the summons upon the petitioner. On the aforesaid basis and also on the ground that there is some contradiction in the date of knowledge of the ex parte decree, the Court below refused to set aside the ex parte decree. The appellate Court held that the petitioner has not mentioned in his application that his mother is living separately and that the mother of the petitioner has not been examined. The appellate Court further held that Mr. Bhengra, from whom the petitioner got inform