(1 of 9)

[CR-62/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 62/2021

Banwari Lal S/o Nathu Ram, aged about 56 years, R/o House

No. 81, Bhoop Colony, SSB Road, Sri Ganganagar

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

Smt. Sarita Bishnoi widow of Ripudaman Singh,

2.

Nishant Bishnoi S/o Ripudaman Singh,

Both are residents of House No. 1, Ripudaman House,

Near Durgesh Cinema, Sri Ganganagar

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. S.L. Jain

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. S.R.Godara

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

Order

April 5, 2022

The instant civil revision petition under Section 115 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by the

petitioner-defendant of Civil Original Suit No. 63/2007, whose

application filed under Order IX, Rule 13 of C.P.C. for setting aside

ex-parte Judgment & Decree dated 03.07.2009 was dismissed by

the Additional Civil Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar vide Order dated

15.09.2017 passed in Civil Misc. Case No. 76/2011 (Banwari Lal

Vs. Smt. Sarita Bishnoi & ors.). The appeal filed by the

defendant-petitioner against the same was also dismissed by the

Additional District Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar vide Order dated

04.09.2021 passed in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 24/2017 (Banwari Lal

Vs. Smt. Sarita Bishnoi & anr.).

(2 of 9)

[CR-62/2021]

The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs (respondents

herein) filed an eviction suit against the defendant – Banwari Lal

(petitioner herein) on 18.09.2007. On 29.09.2007, the summon

was issued to the defendant for 17.11.2007, which was returned

unserved with the report that the defendant was not found in the

house, however, his adult son was found present, who refused to

receive the summon, then the same was affixed on the house of

the defendant. On 04.01.2008, without assigning any reason for

not relying upon the said report, the trial court again issued

summon to the defendant Banwari Lal for 16.02.2008, which was

returned unserved with the report that the house of the defendant

was found locked. On third occasion, the summon issued for

09.05.2008, which was returned with the following report :-

“Jheku th] jkedqekj lokj D.J. dksVZ Jh xaxkuxj esa gYQh;k

fjiksVZ djrk gwW fd eSus fn- 29@2@08 dks ntZ irs ij tkdj eSaus

Jh cuokjhyky s/o Jh uRFkwjke fo”uksbZ dks ryk”k fd;k edku

ij Jh cuokjhyky dh iRuh feyh mlus viuk deyknsoh crk;k

Jh cuokjhyky dks dgh tkuk o “kkehy jguk crk;k uksVhl izkIrh

ds fy, dgk rks uksVhl izkIrh ls bUdkj fd;k bUdkjh djus ij

uksVhl e; okn udy [kqys edku ij pLik fd;k ekSds ij fdlh

us xokgh ugha fd iRuh }kjk bUdkjh ij pLik fjiksVZ Jheku th

fd lsok esa is”k gSA”

On the basis of above report, service of summon upon the

defendant was treated sufficient and on account of non-

appearance of the defendant, ex-parte proceedings were initiated

against him on 09.05.2008. Afterwards, the case was adjourned

for six times for recording ex-parte evidence of the plaintiffs. On

18.04.2009, ex-parte evidence was recorded and after hearing the

arguments on 15.05.2009, ex-parte decree was passed against

the defendant on 03.07.2009. Aggrieved with ex-parte judgment

and decree, the defendant filed an application under Order IX,

(3 of 9)

[CR-62/2021]

Rule 13 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. on 19.11.2011 alleging

that report of the process server was false. The defendant came

to know about ex-parte decree on 08.11.2011 when Najir of the

Court tried to proceed against him. The application was replied by

the plaintiffs. The trial court after recording the evidence of both

the parties, dismissed the application of the defendant filed under

Order IX, Rule 13 of C.P.C. vide Order dated 15.09.2017. The trial

court relied upon the report of the process server and found that

there was no irregularity in the service of summon against the

defendant. The objection of the defendant-petitioner to the effect

that house number was not mentioned on the summon, was not