Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—Present revision is directed against the order of Additional District Judge, Court No.10, Muzaffarnagar dated 17.09.2009, by which the application under Order IX, Rule 13, CPC filed by the revisionist for the recalling of the order dated 31.5.2005 has been rejected. Apart from the aforesaid application, other applications have also been rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the revisionist was tenant of shop in dispute. The respondent/plaintiff filed SCC suit No. 22 of 2004 for the eviction and arrears of rent on the ground that the revisionist had committed default in payment of rent. Initially the notice was sent for the eviction, which has been refused and neither the rent has been paid nor the premises has been vacated, therefore, the suit has been filed. In the suit, the summons have been issued by the Court below. The revisionist refused to take the summons and, therefore, the service was treated as sufficient and the Court proceeded to decide the suit ex-parte. The suit was decided ex-parte vide order dated 31.5.2005. In pursuance thereof, the execution proceeding has been initiated and on 21.11.2006 the possession of the property i