Rajinder vs Shanti
2024 Latest Caselaw 1524 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rajinder vs Shanti on 23 January, 2024

Author: Anil Kshetarpal

Bench: Anil Kshetarpal

                     107                                                            2024:PHHC:008597



                               In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh


                                                          Civil Revision No. 7472 of 2016 (O&M)

                                                                      Date of Decision: 23.01.2024


                     Rajinder Singh
                                                                                     ... Petitioner(s)

                                                          Versus

                     Shanti
                                                                                   ... Respondent(s)

                     CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

                     Present:       Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate
                                    for the petitioner(s).

                     Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1. The petitioner assails the correctness of the concurrent orders

passed by both the Courts below while dismissing his application under

Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred

to as "CPC") to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree passed for the

recovery of ₹2,32,000/- on the basis of pronote and receipt. It has been

found that the petitioner had refused to accept summons tendered to him by

the Process Server on 23.05.2009, in the presence of the Sarpanch and

Panches of the village where he was residing. The report of refusal was

attested by the Process Server (Court official), the Sarpanch and Panches of

the village.

2. The learned counsel representing the petitioner, while referring

to the order dated 15.05.2009, submits that the Court had ordered the

plaintiff to furnish the registered cover in order to issue notice to the

2024.01.29 10:52 defendant. However, he never complied with the same. He further submits

2024:PHHC:008597

that the Process Server never pasted the notice on the conspicuous part of the

house.

3. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned

counsel representing the petitioner.

4. While exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the Court can

interfere only if the orders passed by the two Courts suffer from perversity.

In this case, the petitioner should have summoned the Process Server and

questioned him in order to know the correct facts. It was the petitioner who

came to the Court alleging that he never refused to accept the summons.

Therefore, it was his responsibility to prove that the Process Server never

tendered the notices to him. Moreover, while filing the application, the

petitioner has not explained any enmity between him, the Sarpanch and

Panches of the village.

5. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground is made out to

interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the present revision petition is

dismissed.

6. The miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, shall stand

disposed of.

(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge January 23, 2024 "DK"

                               Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No
                               Whether reportable           : Yes/No