IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that proper procedures for ex-parte proceedings were followed, and the petitioner had knowledge of the case, validating the ex-parte order.

JUDGMENT :

(Archana Puri, J.) :

Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 25.10.2021 (Annexure P-11) passed by learned trial Court, whereby, an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 10.05.2013 (Annexure P-7) was dismissed.

2. The background facts, essential to be noticed, to adjudicate the matter, are as follows:-

That, initially, plaintiffs Satinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Satinder Kaur (respondents No.1 and 2 in the present case) had filed a suit against defendant No.2-Satish Kumar (present petitioner) and other defendants, thereby, seeking partition of the residential house, wherein, preliminary decree was passed by learned trial Court on 30.03.2012 and the file was ordered to be consigned to record. Copy of the said judgment and decree is Annexure P-1. However, after passing of the preliminary decree, an application under Order 20 Rule 18 read with Section 151 CPC, for passing of the final decree was filed by respondents No.1 and 2, copy whereof is Anneuxre P-2. On the said application, on 12.05.2012, notice was ordered to be issued for 04.08.2012. However, the matter was taken up on 28.07.2012 and the case was adjourned to 06.10.2012, for the same purpose. On 06.10.2012, notice was again ordered to be issued to the present petitioner (who was defendant No.2 before learned trial Court) for 01.11.2012. On 01.11.2012, summons were received back with the report of refusal, copy whereof is Annexure P-3. For appraisal, the order dated 01.11.2012 as recorded by the trial Court, is reproduced in verbatim, as herein given:-

“Sh. Pardeep Sharma, Adv. Appeared on behalf of defendant No.4 and filed POA, he is directed to file written statement for 30.11.12. Summons issued to the remaining defendants received back with the report of refusal, hence they are ordered to be summoned through Munadi and affixation on filing of Munadi fee within 7 days from today returnable for 30.11.12.”

3. On the next date i.e. 30.11.2012, again defendants were ordered to be served through Munadi for 11.01.2013 and thereafter, again the case was adjourned for service through Munadi. On 11.01.2013, fresh notice was ordered to be issued to the petitioner through ordinary process as well as through RC. On 16.04.2013, notice issued to petitioner-defendant No.2 was not received back served or un-served and learned trial Court had ordered for publication in the newspaper ‘Chardikala’ for 10.05.2013. On 10.05.2013, the petitioner-defendant No.2, was proceeded against ex-parte.

4. Subsequently, when the matter was pending before learned trial Court on 19.03.2021 for service of defendant No.5, the present petitioner-defendant No.2, had filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, thereby, seeking setting aside of the ex-parte order dated 10.05.2013, copy whereof is Annexures P-8. No reply was filed to the said application. However, vide impugned order dated 25.10.2021, the application of the petitioner-defendant No.2 was dismissed.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of dismissal of the application, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant No.2.

6. Learned counsel for the parties heard.

7. The grievance of the petitioner is two-fold. Firstly, that appropriate procedure was not followed, while proceeding ex-parte against him and secondly, that he was not aware of the proceedings, till 15.03.2021. However, learned trial Court had disbelieved the petitioner on both the aforesaid counts. Keeping in view the material, coming forth, the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court, are also bereft of merits.

8. In the grounds of revision, the orders passed by learned trial Court, in an application for passing of the final decree, relating to dates 12.05.2012, 28.07.2012 and then 06.10.2012, have been reproduced. Furthermore, even order dated 01.11.2012, vide which, Munadi was ordered to be effected qua the remaining defendan