The legal principle established is that for an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, the court must ensure that the defendant was duly served with the summons, and false reports on summons can lead to the setting aside of ex parte orders.

JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. - Heard in physical mode.

2. The present revision petition has been filed petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 17.01.2020 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad whereby the appeal filed by the defendant-respondent has been allowed.

3. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiffpetitioner instituted a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 24.04.2007 qua plot measuring 50 sq. yds. situated in Village Unchagaon, Faridabad for a total sale consideration of 21 Lacs out of which it was averred that the payment of Rs. 1,67,500/- was received by the defendantrespondent and possession was also handed over to the plaintiff-petitioner on the same date. The sale deed was to be executed upto 24.04.2008 but on the said date the defendant-respondent did not appear before the Sub Registrar.

4. The plaintiff-petitioner filed the present suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell 24.04.2007. In the suit none appeared on behalf of the defendant-respondent despite the service by munadi and he was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 27.10.2009. The suit was decreed ex parte against the defendant-respondent vide judgment and decree dated 24.04.2012. On 20.03.2014 an application was filed by the defendantrespondent under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for setting aside the ex parte order dated 27.10.2009 and judgment and decree dated 20.04.2012 on the plea that the defendant-respondent was never served and that the plaintiff-petitioner and the defendant-respondent were relatives and the plaintiff-petitioner had full knowledge about the correct address of the defendant-respondent who is a permanent resident of Meerpur Jarara, Tehsil Khurja, District Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh and the said address was never mentioned in the summons. It was further stated in the application that the defendant-respondent came to know about the ex parte order when he had appeared in another civil suit titled as 'Vimlesh Vs. Bohri' on 05.02.2014. The said application was contested by the plaintiffpetitioner and the stand taken by the plaintiff-petitioner was that the defendant-respondent intentionally did not contest the suit and instead of executing the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner alienated the suit property to one Anil Kumar Solanki son of Birpal Solanki vide registered sale deed dated 02.01.2009.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to seek the relief of setting aside the ex parte order dated 27.10.2001 and ex parte judgment and decree dated 20.04.2012? OPA

2. Whether the applicant has no cause of action to file the present application? OPR

3. Whether the present application is not maintainable? OPR

4. Whether the application of applicant is barred by limitation? OPR

5. Whether the applicant has not come to the court with clean hand? OPR

6. Relief.

6. In support of his claim, the defendant-respondent examined AW1 Birwati and placed on record Ex.A1 copy of death certificate, Ex.A2 document issued by Sarpanch dated 01.09.2015, Ex.A3 copy of Aadhaar Card of Birmati Devi and closed his evidence.

7. To rebut the claim, the plaintiff-petitioner examined himself as RW1 and tendered in evidence the documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R6.

8. The Trial Court vide order dated 27.07.2018 dismissed the application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 27.10.2009 and ex parte judgment and decree dated 20.04.2012. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred by the defendant-respondent which was allowed vide order dated 17.01.2020. Hence, the present revision petition by the plaintiffpetitioner.

9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner would contend that the defendant-respondent was duly served and even munadi was done, however, he chose not to appear before the Court and that the Trial Court had rightly dismi