JUDGMENT

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. - The instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 01.11.2021 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram, which was upheld by the lower appellate Court vide order dated 31.03.2022.

2. Mr. Amit Jain, learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that it was a matter of record that service upon the petitioner in the partition proceedings was not effected and infact the aforementioned proceedings were carried out behind his back. He argued that in the partition proceedings, the petitioner was initially proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 11.10.2013, which was later set aside vide order dated 17.11.2016, on a handwritten application moved by an Advocate who had not even been engaged by the petitioner. He further contends that on 16.01.2017 Sanad Takseem was ordered to be prepared on the basis of a consent statement made by the same Advocate, who put in an appearance on behalf of the petitioner without being appointed by him. While drawing the attention of this Court to the application filed by the Advocate for setting aside the ex-parte order (Annexure P3) and