- (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 27.4.2011, whereby the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC seeking settingaside of the ex-parte order dated 22.3.1999 and ex-parte judgment and decree dated 22.3.2001, has been dismissed and order dated 3.12.2013, whereby the appeal filed against the dismissal of the application, has been dismissed.
(2.) Mr.R.S.Budhwar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that Bakhtawar Singh was owner of the land and he, vide judgment and decree dated 28.8.1971, executed a decree in favour of the petitioner. In 1998, the aforementioned judgment and decree was challenged by Bakhtawar Singh and in those proceedings, the petitioner, who was arrayed as a defendant, was proceeded ex-parte on 22.3.1999 and thereafter ex-parte judgment and decree dated 22.3.2001 was passed.
(3.) An application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC in the suit was filed on 31.5.2001 taking numerous grounds, which are numerated herein below:- a) The summons sent for service of the petitioner for 6.3.1999 showed that the petitioner had hidden from the notice of the Process Server Parshotam Dass. The trial Court adjourned the matter for 22.3.1999 and summons in this regard were issued by the process serving agency to Process Server Tarsem Lal. As per his report dated 6.3.1999 (Ex.AW2/B) on the summons, the petitioner has refused to take the summons; b) The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code have not been complied with, much less summons have not been affixed in case there was actual refusal. Even the address given in the plaint was of Kurukshetra, whereas summons had been sent at Ambala and actually the petitioner is resident of Ambala; c) As per the judgment and decree dated 28.8.1971, the father of the petitioner had executed a relinquishment deed in favour of his son and suit in this regard is pending adjudication.;