Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.: (Oral) - Feeling aggrieved against the judgment dated 03.08.2016 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, upholding the order dated 08.12.2014 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned trial Court, thereby dismissing the application of the defendant under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’), for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 22.10.2007, petitioner has approached this Court, by way of instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the impugned orders.

2. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of the present revision petition, are that Civil Suit No.31 dated 21.02.2007 was filed by the plaintiff-respondent Hardam Singh for recovery, on the basis of pronote and receipt executed by the defendant-petitioner in favour of the plaintiff. When the defendant was not being served in the ordinary course, plaintiff sought to serve him through publication. The learned trial Court felt satisfied about the due service on the defendant. However, when defendant did not come forward despite service, to contest the suit, it was decreed ex-parte by the learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 22.10.2007 (Annexure P-1).

3. Plaintiff-decreeholder filed his execution application dated 10.05.2008 (Annexure P-2) impleading the defendant-petitioner on the same address, at which he was impleaded as defendant in the suit. After about six years, petitioner filed his undated application (Annexure P-3) under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the abovesaid ex-parte decree dated 22.10.2007. Respondent-plaintiff filed his reply to the application vide Annexure P-4 dated 02.08.2013. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, the learned trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioner vide its impugned order dated 08.12.2014 (Annexure P-5). Petitioner filed his appeal which also came to be dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide its impugned judgment dated 03.08.2016 (Annexure P-6). Hence this revision petition at the hands of the defendant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner was not properly served, he did not come to know about the ex-parte decree in time. The moment he came to know, application for setting aside the ex-parte decree was filed but the learned Courts below failed to appreciate the true factual as well as legal aspect of the matter, while passing their respective impugned orders, which have resulted in miscarriage of justice. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgments of this Court in Subedar Amar Singh, Vs. Avtar Singh, 2003 (3) RCR (Civil) 580, Jaswant Singh Vs. Sukhjit Kaur, 2010 (3) PLR 33, Lilu Ram Vs. Mangtu Ram and others, [2012(1) Law Herald (P&H) 105] : 2012 (5) RCR (Civil) 18 and Indal Kumar Vs. Gaurav Kumar Grover, 2015 (4) PLR 713. He prays for setting aside the impugned orders, by allowing the present revision petition.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noticed hereinabove, no fault can be found with the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below. The revision petition is without any merit, which is liable to be dismissed, for the following more than one reasons.

6. It was a matter of record and has also gone undisputed that the defendant-petitioner was residing at Maur Mandi, at the time when he executed the pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. In this view of the matter, the plaintiff was well justified to implead the petitioner-defendant at his same address of Maur Mandi. It is pertinent to note here that even in his application under Order 9 Ru