Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral):- Defendants No.1 and 3 to 6 and legal representatives of defendant No.2 have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 08.04.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad thereby dismissing application of defendants filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree dated 30.08.2006 passed in Civil Suit instituted by respondent-plaintiff Narayan Singh against the defendants, along with order dated 16.09.2005 whereby defendants were proceeded ex parte in the suit, and also assailing judgment dated 12.05.2011 Annexure P-3 passed by learned District Judge, Faridabad thereby dismissing appeal preferred by the defendants against order Annexure P-2 of the trial Court.

2. Respondent-plaintiff instituted suit against petitioners No.1 to 5 and predecessor of petitioners No.6 to 8 alleging that Amar Singh father of all the defendants agreed to sell the suit land to plaintiff vide agreement dated 14.10.2004 for Rs.3,62,500/- (Rupees three lacs sixty two thousand five hundred) and received Rs.3,12,500 (Rupees three lacs twelve thousand five hundred) as earnest money and executed agreement dated 14.10.2004 and possession of the suit land was also delivered to the plaintiff. On death of Amar Singh, defendants being his sons are his successors. The plaintiff sought specific performance of the aforesaid agreement along with permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land and from alienating the same to anybody else.

3. Notice of the suit was issued to defendants who are all brothers. Notice was allegedly received by Usha wife of Kuldeep defendant No.3 on behalf of the defendants. Taking it to be valid service on family member of the defendants, the defendants were proceeded ex parte on 16.09.2005 because none appeared for them. The suit was decreed vide ex parte judgment (Annexure P-1) and decree dated 30.08.2006.

4. Defendants in their application moved under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC alleged that they were never served in the suit. False report was obtained by plaintiff in collusion with process server. Defendants learnt on 14.09.2006 of the passing of impugned judgment and decree when plaintiff threatened to dispossess the defendants from the suit land on the basis of ex parte judgment and decree dated 30.08.2006. Thereupon defendants contacted their counsel and learnt of the ex parte judgment and decree as well as order dated 16.09.2005 whereby they were proceeded ex parte in the suit. Report of service of summons on family member of defendants was false.

5. Respondent-plaintiff contested the application and pleaded that defendants were duly served in the suit and they were also fully aware of the suit. Averments made in the application were controverted. Various other pleas were also raised.

6. Learned trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-2 dismissed the application of defendants. Appeal preferred against the said order by the defendants has also been dismissed by learned District Judge vide impugned judgment Annexure P-3. Feeling aggrieved, defendants (including legal representatives of defendant No.2) have preferred the instant revision petition.

7. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

8. Counsel for the petitioners contended that defendant No.2 Asha Ram (since deceased and represented by petitioners No.6 to 8) was residing in Delhi whereas the remaining defendants were residing in the village in district Faridabad but they were also residing separately from one another and, therefore, alleged service of summons of the suit on wife of defendant No.3 Kuldeep only, cannot be said to be service of summons on family member of the remaining defendants and, therefore, it was not valid service of the remaining defendants who, therefore, could not be pro