The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper service of summons and the principles of natural justice in setting aside ex parte orders.

JUDGMENT

Raj Mohan Singh, J. - Petitioners have preferred this revision petition against the order dated 24.08.2018 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, vide which application filed by respondent No.2 under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside the ex parte order dated 16.01.2013 and ex parte judgment and decree dated 29.09.2014 has been allowed. Judgment and decree dated 29.09.2014 has been set aside qua respondent No.2 and the case has been fixed for filing written statement on behalf of respondent No.2.

2. Before adverting to the merits of the case, some past history of the case is relevant to be noticed. It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 had entered into an agreement to sell with respondent No.3 Dharambir vide agreement to sell dated 30.01.1996 in respect of 20 kanals of land. On refusal to execute the sale deed, a civil suit was filed by respondent No.2 against respondent No.3 Dharambir. The civil suit was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 19.11.2003.

3. During pendency of the suit, respondent No.3/Dharambir executed sale deed dated 29.03.2001 in favour of respondent No.1 Ramphool. Judgment and decree dated 19.11.2003 was upheld by the Lower Appellate Court on 21.03.2005 in an appeal filed by respondent No.3/Dharambir. Thereafter respondent No.3/Dhararmbir filed RSA No.3805 of 2005 in which judgment and decree passed by the Courts below were modified to the extent of 2 kanals out 20 kanals of land which was acquired. The suit was decreed against remaining 18 kanals of land in favour of respondent No.2 vide judgment dated 29.05.2006. Respondent No.3/Dharambir feeling dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court, preferred to file SLP, but the same was dismissed. Respondent No.3/Dharambir after remaining unsuccessful upto the Hon'ble Apex Court, motivated respondent No.1/Ramphool to file third party objections on the basis of sale deed dated 29.03.2001 which was allegedly executed on the basis of Civil Court decree dated 09.08.1999.

4. The executing Court dismissed the objections filed by respondent No.1/Ramphool vide order dated 22.09.2010 holding that respondent No.1/Ramphool and respondent No.3/Dharambir were in collusion with each other and they had prepared an agreement dated 04.07.1995. It was also observed that the suit filed by respondent No.2 was prior in point of time and the sale deed executed in favour of respondent No.1/Ramphool had been executed during pendency of the suit and the Civil Court decree dated 09.08.1999 was obtained in collusion with each other. Sale deed dated 29.03.2001 and consequent mutations were declared to be null and void. Thereafter, respondent No.1/Ramphool filed appeal against the order dated 22.09.2010 and the same was dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court on 21.09.2011. Respondent No.1/Ramphool further filed regular second appeal, but the same was also dismissed by the High Court on 29.11.2011. Objector Ramphool further filed SLP No.31598 of 2012 and the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 05.11.2012. Even review application filed by respondent No.1 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

5. In the execution filed by respondent No.2, the sale deed dated 18.11.2011 was executed in favour of respondent No.2 in view of decree dated 19.11.2003 which was modified by the High Court to the extent of 2 kanals. The execution was held to be fully satisfied and the same was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn on 03.12.2011. Mutations No.1857 and 1858 were sanctioned and were duly given effect in the revenue record after dismissal of objections filed by Ramphool. Vide mutation No.1875, the land was reverted from Ramphool to Dharambir and vide mutation No.1858, the same was mutated in favour of respondent No.2 on the basis of sale deed dated 18.11.2011. Respondents No.1 and 3 disputed the mutations, but their objections were dismissed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Ballabgarh.

6. Evidently, the parties h