MUKTESHWAR PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the tenant, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the judgment and Order dated 5. 5. 1995 and 22. 5. 1998 passed by respondent No. 2 and 2. 11. 1998 passed by the respondent No. 1 (Annexures-2, 8 and 9 to the writ petition) respectively.

( 2 ) COUNTER and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and are on record. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is being disposed of finally at this stage.

( 3 ) IT appears that S. C. C. Suit No. 99 of 1994 was filed by the landlord for evicting the tenant-petitioner from house No. 1/27, Indra Puri Chharra Adda, Aligarh and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages in the Court of Judge Small Causes. The suit was filed on 9. 8. 1994 and the Judge directed to issue summons to tenant fixing 8. 10. 1994 for final hearing. On 10. 10. 1994, summons was received back unserved and Court fixed 25. 10. 1994 for awaiting summons. On 25. 10. 1994, the plaintiff along with his counsel appeared in the Court but none appeared on behalf of defendant and as such, the Court passed Order for proceeding ex parts against the defendant and fixed 28. 11. 1994 for ex parte hearing. Ultimately, the suit was decreed ex parte on 5. 5. 1995.

( 4 ) THE tenant-petitioner moved an application under Order IX, Rule 13, C. P. C. for setting aside the ex parte decree mainly on the grounds that no summons was served on him through process server or through registered post and he never refused to receive summons. It was also alleged that during pendency of the suit, the landlord sold the disputed house to opposite party Nos. 4 to 6 (Sanjai Chopra, Vikas Chopra and Kaushal Chopra), which could not be done. The Court directed to serve the notice on defendants. Again, the defendant-applicant was not served and ex parte decree was passed. On 22. 8. 1996 one Rajendra informed the petitioner about ex parte decree and then he got the record Inspected and moved an application for setting aside the ex parte decree. It was further alleged that house number of the defendant was not mentioned in the plaint.

( 5 ) A written objection was filed on behalf of the landlord denying all the allegations. The application was opposed on the grounds, inter alia, that Indra Deo Dubey, Peon, of the civil court went to serve summons on the petitioner on 1. 9. 1994 and the petitioner in the presence of two independent witnesses Gurvachan and Ved Prakash refused to accept the summons. Ultimately, peon affixed a copy of the summons at the door of the house. Besides, the summons was sent by registered post also on 22. 8. 1994 and same was also refused on 25. 8. 1994 and as such, no misrepresentation or fraud was practiced on the Court and suit was rightly decreed ex parte.

( 6 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, learned Judge, Small Causes found that summons sent through the process server and postman was refused by tenant-petitioner and he had notice of the suit. Moreover, the application was barred by limitation. He, therefore, rejected the application. The tenant-petitioner filed S. C. C. Revision No. 26 of 1998 in the Court of district Judge, which was also dismissed and the Order of the learned Judge Small Causes was affirmed by the Additional District Judge on 2. 11. 1998,

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders mainly on the grounds that the Court never passed any Order for issuing summons to the defendant by registered post as provided under Rule 19a of Order V. C. P. C. and alleged refusal of the petitioner and endorsement of the postman on the envelope was manipulated by the respondent. It is quite clear from the Order sheet of the court below that the summons originally sent by the Court was not served upon the petitioner and was received back unserved. The Court passed no Order for issuing summons again for service. Moreover, house number of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document