Ashok Bhan - (1.) KULDIP Singh and Tirath Singh (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) filed an application against the petitioner Raghunath Dass (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner). The petitioner was ordered to be proceeded ex parte. The exparte order of ejectment was passed and in execution of that ejectment order, the respondents took the possession of the building in question on 30.3.1985.
(2.) THE petition filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte proceedings and the decree passed against him on the plea that he was never served in the main petitiion and that the respondents, in collusion with the Process-Server, obtained the report of the refusal of the applicant on the summons. Further the case of the petitioner was that upon this false report, he was ordered to be summoned through Munadi and affixation but the respondents again colluded with the bailiff and got the false report of Munadi and affixation, whereupon the petitioner was ordered to be proceeded ex parte. The petitioner filed the application on 1.4.1985 and notice of the application was served on the respondents. The respondents vehemently denied that they had obtained a false report of refusal of the petitioner from the Process Serving Agency, It was averred that the petitioner had refused to accept the service and thereafter he was ordered to be summoned through Munadi and affixation, and that the petitioner did not appear inspite of Munadi and affixation which had been duly made.
(3.) THE petitioner, in support of his case, appeared as A.W. 1 whereas the respondents produced Kewal Chand as R.W. 1 and Raghunath Parsad as R.W. 2 R.W. 1 stated that the petitioner had refused to accept service. R.W. 2 in his statement averred that munadi was duly effected by him against the petitioner by affixation and beat of drum.;