JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

The instant revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the order dated 28.07.2025, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Moga, dismissing the appeal against the order dated 07.11.2017, vide which the application preferred by the petitioner under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 25.03.2014, was dismissed.

2. A summary suit under the provisions of Order 37 CPC for recovery of Rs.6,00,000/- along with interest was instituted by the respondent/plaintiff (Nachattar Singh) against the petitioner/defendant (Jaswinder Singh). For, he did not appear in the said suit, the petitioner/ defendant was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 15.02.2014, and the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 25.03.2014 (Annexure P-1).

3. An application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was instituted by the petitioner/defendant, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 18.11.2015 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Moga. Appeal against the said order was allowed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Moga, vide order dated 17.12.2016 (Annexure P-3), and the matter was remanded to the trial Court for a fresh decision after framing of issues, since previously no issues were framed and no evidence was permitted to be led.

4. After the matter having been remitted, the trial Court framed the following issues:-

“1) Whether there are sufficient grounds to set aside the judgment and decree dated 25.03.2014? OPA

2) Whether the present application is not maintainable? OPR

3. Whether applicant/respondent has not come to the court with clean hands and has concealed the material facts from this Court? OPR

4. Whether the present application of the applicant is time barred? OPR

5. Parties led their respective evidence. Whereafter, vide order dated 07.11.2017 (Annexure P-4), application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was dismissed. This led to the filing of an appeal, which too has been dismissed vide order dated 28.07.2025, leading to the filing of the instant revision petition.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant.

7. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant that both Courts erred in dismissing the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 25.03.2014. Learned counsel submits that there had been no proper service to the petitioner/defendant and, therefore, he was wrongly proceeded against ex parte, and consequently the ex parte judgment and decree was wrongly passed. He has referred to various orders, annexed with the petition, as also the summons etc.

8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner but find the same to be devoid of merit.

9. Order IX Rule 13 CPC reads as under:-

“13. Setting aside decree ex parte against defendant. —In any case in which a decree is passed ex parte against a defendant, he may apply to the Court by which the decree was passed for an order to set it aside; and if he satisfies the Court that the summons was not duly served, or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the decree as against him upon such terms as to costs, payment into Court or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit:

Provided that where the decree is of such a nature that it cannot be set aside as against such defendant only it may be set aside as against all or any of the other defendants also:

[Provided further than no Court shall set aside a decree passed ex parte merely on the ground that there has been an irregularity in the service of summons, if it is satisfied that the defendant had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiff's claim.]

[E