Proper service of summons is essential for the validity of court proceedings.

ORDER

Alka Sarin, J. - Heard through video conferencing.

2. The present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 11.09.2020 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Trial Court allowing the application filed by the defendant-respondent under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 12.08.2016.

3. The facts relevant to the present Us are that in February 2016 the plaintiff-petitioner filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs.56,000/-(Rs.50,000/- principal + Rs.6,000/- interest) against the defendant-respondent. Notice of the civil suit was issued to the defendant-respondent but he did not appear and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 06.05.2016. The civil suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 12.08.2016 (Annexure P-4). In November 2016 the plaintiff-petitioner filed an execution petition in which the defendant-respondent put in appearance through counsel on 01.07.2017. Immediately, the defendant-respondent also filed an application (Annexure P-11) under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 12.08.2016.

4. The case as set-up by the defendant-respondent in his application (Annexure P-11) was that he is a permanent resident of Ward No. 12, Mohalla Ramgharia, Kotkapura, Tehsil and District Faridkot (Punjab) and on 09/10.05.2017, he received summons through registered post and when he contacted his counsel with a copy of the summons on 20.05.2017, he learnt that the same pertained to a judgment and decree for recovery of Rs.56,000/- which had been passed against him. The defendant-respondent obtained the relevant documents by 26.05.2017 and was shocked to know that he had been proceeded against ex-parte on 06.05.2016 in the civil suit though the summons were never served upon him as they were sent through registered post to City Faridkot though his correct address is of Kotkapura. It was averred that the defendant-respondent had no knowledge about the civil suit pending against him so he could not appear in it and that the order dated 06.05.2016 and the judgment and decree dated 12.08.2016 had been passed behind his back, without his knowledge and without service of summons upon him. The defendant-respondent had contended that the plaintiff-petitioner had intentionally got the summons issued on the wrong address to misguide the Trial Court and to avoid the contest of suit by applicant. According to the defendant-respondent, in 2015 he sought the help of the plaintiff-petitioner to file a criminal complaint against certain persons and engaged Shri Pawan Kumar Sharma, Advocate for filing the case for him and at that time his signatures were taken on various blank papers and power of attorney. However, in criminal complaint a compromise was effected between the accused persons and the defendant-respondent and he withdrew the criminal complaint. However, the plaintiff-petitioner demanded a share out of the settlement amount which the defendant-respondent refused. Later, by using the signed blank papers, which were given at the time of filing the criminal complaint, the plaintiff-petitioner forged and fabricated a receipt dated 20.07.2015 and on the basis of the same the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 12.08.2016 were passed.

5. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a reply (Annexure P-12) to the said application and contested the same raising preliminary objections. It was contended that the defendant-respondent was aware about the pendency of the civil suit against him and kept on watching the proceedings from outside the Court and intentionally did not appear. It was stated that the summons in the civil suit were served upon the defendant-respondent through registered post at his correct address and that the falsity of the claim of the defendant-respondent was evident since he was duly served at the same address in the execution petition. The plaintiff-petitioner further averred that in