Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—This is a tenant’s writ petition. A SCC Suit No. 5 of 1988 was filed by the landlords for ejectment of the petitioner and for arrears of rent. The suit was decreed ex parte on 27.9.1989. The landlord-owner is alleged to have executed two sale-deeds in favour of Rajendra Prasad and Anil Kumar on 16.11.1994 and 24.11.1994. The respondents No. 1 to 15 of this writ petition are the heirs and legal representatives of the original owners namely late Raja Lal Sharma and late Brahma Swaroop Sharma.

2. The purchasers from the original owners filed an impleadment application in the suit. However, the same was rejected by the trial Court and, therefore, the heirs and legal representatives of the original owners continued to contest the proceedings which were initiated by the petitioner after the ex parte decree dated 27.9.1989.

3. According to the petitioner although the decree was obtained by the original owners on 27.9.1989 they filed an execution application in the year 2000. Notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner got inspected the records of the suit on 5.9.2000 when for the first time he learnt about the ex parte decree dated 27.9.1989 in SCC Suit No. 5 of 1988. The petitioner alleges to have filed an application on 5.9.2000 for setting aside the ex parte decree. The respondents-owners filed objection dated 4.8.2007 whereupon by the order dated 29.8.2007 the application for recall of the ex parte decree was dismissed. The petitioner filed Revision No. 31 of 2007 which was also dismissed on 30.3.2009.

4. The petitioner alleges to have filed Writ Petition No. 12575 of 2009 wherein by the order dated 19.5.2009 the matter was remitted to the trial Court to decide afresh the application of the petitioner filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court allowed the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 23.10.2009. The respondent owners filed Revision No. 18 of 2009 which has been allowed by the order dated 23.12.2010 whereagainst this writ petition has been filed.

5. Sri Vishnu Sahai has appeared on behalf of the petitioner and Sri P.K.Singh, Advocate has filed his power on behalf of respondent Nos. 8 to 11 and has submitted that he is also representing the interest of respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and 15 since all the respondents belong to the same family.

6. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no notice of the suit was ever served upon the petitioner and, therefore, the revisional Court has committed an illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thereby maintaining the ex parte decree of SCC Suit No. 5 of 1988. His submission is that the burden of proof was on the respondent owners to prove that service of the notice had been effected on the petitioner prior to the suit proceeding ex parte against him. It has been stated that the signatures on the order sheet on two dates in the year 1989 purported to be that of the petitioner are fraudulent and emphatically denied by him. It is further stated that when the ex parte decree was passed on 27.9.1989 then putting it into execution in the year 2000 is itself a doubtful conduct of the respondent owners although in the meantime they had sold the property to Rajendra Prasad and Anil Kumar on 16.11.1994 and 24.11.1994.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner while laying emphasis on the burden of proof, has placed reliance on the following decisions the relevant paragraph whereof are quoted hereunder :

1. Uttamrao Shivdas Jankar v. Ranjitsingh Vijaysingh Mohite Patil, (2009) 13 SCC 131.

“44. The presumption of correctness of the nomination paper being statutory in nature, as the intention of Parliament as also the Election Commission was that even if somebody had filed an improper nomination, but for which he can be given benefit of doubt being a possible subject-matter of an election petition wh