127 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 11.03.2026 PREM KUMAR ......... Petitioner VERSUS M/S BALBIR SINGH AND COMPANY AND ANOTHER ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Kamil Nagpal, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral)

1. This revision petition has been instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment dated 10.02.2026 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Court of District Judge, Ferozepur, vide which the order dated 17.01.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) has been set aside vide which the application filed by the respondent/defendant under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 20.04.2022 (Annexure P-1) in Civil Suit No.CS37/36/2022 was dismissed and consequently, the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC has been allowed by the Court of learned District Judge, Ferozepur.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the material on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the well reasoned order passed by the trial Court dismissing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC has been set aside by the Court of District Judge, Ferozepur without assigning any cogent reasons. Learned counsel next contended that the appeal against the dismissal of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC could have been filed under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC but the appeal was filed under Section 96 CPC, which was not maintainable and the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court is liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, Learned counsel has cited the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2005(1) SCC 787, Bhanu Kumar Jain Vs. Archana Kumar and another and 2023 INSC 1065, The koushik Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society Vs. Ameena Begum and another.

4. However, I do not find any force in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and petition in hand is liable to be dismissed for the reasons discussed hereinafter.

5. As per version of respondents/defendants, they were proceeded ex parte and subsequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff/petitioner for recovery of Rs.2,08,000/- was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 20.04.2022. According to the respondents/defendants, the address mentioned in the summons was incorrect and summons were never served upon them. Defendant No.2 was allegedly served through his son but infact no summons were served upon his son and he was wrongly proceeded ex parte. It has been alleged that report on the summons was wrongly made by process server in connivance with the plaintiff. They came to know about the suit on 14.07.2022 when the property owned by defendants was attached in execution proceedings. A prayer was made for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 20.04.2022.

6. Petitioner/plaintiff filed reply submitting that defendant No.2 was duly served through his son and since, he did not appear before the Court, he was rightly proceeded ex parte. It is further submitted that the correct address of the defendants had been given on the summons and dismissal of the application was prayed for.

7. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

1. Where there is a reasonable cause for setting aside ex parte decree dated 20.04.2022 against the applicants? OPA

2. Whether the present application is not maintainable?

OPR

3. Relief.

8. Thereafter, both the parties led their evidence.

9. Learned trial Court came to the conclusion that though son of defendant No.2 namely AW1 Udaybeer Singh Sandhu has denied his signatures on the summons Ex.DX at point ‘A’, yet defendants have not examined any handwriting expert to corroborate his assertion that the signatures on summons Ex.DX are forged and fabricated and defendants have failed to prove the allegations of fraud. It was