Judgment

Mrs. Meenakshi I. Mehta, J.

By way of the instant revision petition, the petitioner-defendant (here-in-after to be referred as ‘the defendant’) has assailed the judgment dated 09.12.2022 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuh (for short ‘the trial Court’), whereby the application (Annexure P-2) moved by him under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC with a prayer to set-aside the ex-parte order dated 19.09.2015 as well as the ex-parte judgment (Annexure P-1) and decree dated 23.08.2017, has been dismissed and he has also laid challenge to the judgment dated 06.01.2023 (Annexure P-6) handed down by learned Additional District Judge, Nuh (for short ‘the Appellate Court’), dismissing the appeal, as preferred by him against the judgment Annexure P-4.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts culminating in the filing of the present revision petition, are that the respondent-plaintiff (here-in-after to be referred as ‘the plaintiff) filed a Civil Suit against the defendant for seeking the decree for possession of the suit land by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 10.09.2013, with a further prayer for the consequential relief of permanent injunction, while averring that the defendant had executed the above-referred agreement for selling the suit land to him @ Rs.40 lac per acre and had received a sum of Rs.5 lac as earnest money and the date of execution and registration of the sale-deed was stipulated as 16.04.2014 and though he (plaintiff) had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the afore-said agreement but the defendant had failed to do the needful in this regard. However, the defendant was proceeded against ex-parte in the Suit on 19.09.2015. Then, the plaintiff led his ex-parte evidence and after appreciating and evaluating the same, the trial Court decreed the said Civil Suit vide the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2017. Thereafter, the defendant moved application Annexure P-2 with a prayer for setting aside the above-mentioned ex-parte order as well as the judgment and decree but the same was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment Annexure P-4 and the appeal filed by him against the said judgment, has also been dismissed by the Appellate Court vide the judgment Annexure P-6.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant as well as learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff-caveator in the instant revision petition and have also perused the file carefully.

4. Learned counsel for the defendant has contended that the defendant had never been properly served in the Civil Suit because the summons issued to him for 04.07.2015 is stated to have been received by his son Deepak but he was a minor at that time and the summons issued to him (defendant) for 20.07.2015 is claimed to have been received by his son Rishabh Sharma whereas in fact, none of his sons is named/known as such. Secondly, he has contended that Mr. Duli Chand, Advocate is recorded to have appeared and to have filed the Memos of Appearance on behalf of the defendant in the afore-said Suit on 20.07.2015, 01.08.2015 and 29.08.2015 but he had, actually, never been authorised by him (defendant) to do so and rather, the said Advocate had done so in connivance with the plaintiff because thereafter, he had stopped appearing in the Court and had, thereby, fraudulently got the defendant proceeded against ex-parte in the Civil Suit. Lastly, he has contended that the defendant came to know about the above- mentioned ex-parte order and the judgment and decree on 12.05.2018 and then, he moved application Annexure P-2 on 02.07.2018 as during this interregnum, the Courts remained closed on account of summer vacations and thus, this application had been filed by