JUDGMENT

Meenakshi I. Mehta, J.

By way of the instant revision petition, the petitioner-defendant No.4-applicant (here-in-after to be referred as 'the applicant') has assailed the order dated 12.12.2016 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar (for short 'the trial Court'), whereby the application moved by him and his co-applicant-defendant No.3 under Order 9, Rule 13 read with section 151 CPC with a prayer to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 31.01.2011, has been dismissed and he (applicant) has also laid challenge to the judgment dated 14.09.2022 (Annexure P-4), handed down by learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, (for short 'the Appellate Court'), dismissing the appeal preferred by him against order Annexure P-2.

2. Shorn and short of unnecessary details, the facts, culminating in the filing of the present revision petition, are that respondent No.1- plaintiff (here-in-after to be referred as 'the plaintiff') filed a Civil Suit against the applicant and his co-defendants for seeking a decree for possession of the suit property by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 01.05.2006 or in the alternative, for the recovery of the amount of Rs. four(04) lac and all the defendants, including the applicant, were proceeded against ex-parte therein. Vide the above-said judgment and the decree, the Suit was decreed against the applicant and his co-applicant for the recovery of the sum of Rs.4 lac, along-with the interest thereon. Then, they filed the afore-referred application with the prayer to set aside the said judgment and decree and the same has been dismissed by the trial Court vide the order Annexure P-2 and the appeal, as preferred by the applicant against this order, has also been dismissed by the Appellate Court vide the judgment Annexure P-4.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-defendant No.4 in this revision petition, at the preliminary stage and have also perused the file carefully.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant came to know about the above-mentioned judgment and decree for the first time, on 08.10.2012 when the Bailiff came to his office for executing the warrant of attachment qua the suit property and immediately thereafter, he and his co-applicant moved the said application which bears the date 17.10.2012 but the same was filed in the trial Court on 24.07.2013 and hence, the said delay on the part of their counsel cannot be attributed to the applicant so as to deprive him from contesting the afore-said Civil Suit on merits but the trial Court and the Appellate Court have wrongly held this application to be time barred. Secondly, he has contended that the applicant and his co-applicant were never duly served the summonses in the said Suit and rather, the plaintiff had procured the false reports from the concerned Process-Server qua the service of the same upon them and in these circumstances, the impugned order and the judgment are not legally sustainable and therefore, the same deserve to be set aside. To buttress his contentions, he has placed reliance upon Radha Krishna Rai v. Allahabad Bank and others, Civil Appeal No. 4683 of 1999, {Arising out of SLP (C) No.18341 of 1998} Decided on 23.08.1999 (SC); Chhabi Kulavi v. Ganesh Chandra Mondal, Civil Appeal No.7371 of 2000 {Arising out of SLP (C) No.11224 of 2000} Decided on 14.12.2000 (SC); Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu v. Gobardhan Sao, Civil Appeal No.1704 of 2002 {Arising out of SLP (C) No.6496 of 2001} Decided on 27.02.2002 (SC) and M/s Jersey Developers (P) Limited & Ors. v. Canara Bank, Civil Appeal No.2708 of 2022 Decided on 13.04.2022