RAJ KUMAR Vs. JANAK BHATIA @ BABAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner/defendant No.3 seeking setting aside of the order 18/2/2016 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad; whereby petitioner was ordered to be proceeded against exparte; and the order dtd. 27/3/2018 (Annexure P-18) passed by the learned CJJD, Faridabad; whereby the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dtd. 18/2/2016, has been dismissed. Present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner/defendant No.3/judgment debtor seeking setting aside of the order 9/7/2018 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad; whereby objections filed by the petitioner, have been dismissed; and the sale made in favour Janak Bhatia/plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein has been confirmed; and further direction has been issued for issuing sale certificate in favour of Janak Bhatia with a further direction that the sale certificate shall bear date as 9/7/2018 on which the sale become absolute. It has further been prayed that the warrants of possession ordered to be issued in favour of decree-holder be set aside; and the objection petition dtd. 2/7/2018 be allowed and the petitioner be allowed to contest the application for passing final decree in the case.

(2.) Both the above said Civil Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common order as both emanate from the same civil proceedings; are between the same parties; and facts and issues involved in both the Revision Petitions are identical. For the sake of convenience, facts are being drawn from, and parties and Annexures are being referred to as per their status in CR-3913-2018 titled as "Raj Kumar vs. Smt. Janak Bhatia @ Babal and others".

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner was wrongly proceeded against exparte as there is no evidence on record that the service has been validly affected upon the petitioner. It is submitted that a bare reading of the zimni orders dtd. 6/5/2016, 2/7/2016, 22/9/2016 (Annexure P-6 colly) and service report shows that even on 9/8/2016 registered AD was not received served or unserved. It is contended that in this view of the matter there is no proof on record that service was validly affected upon the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner could not have proceeded against exparte vide order dtd. 18/2/2016 (Annexure P-5). Consequentially, application filed by the petitioner for setting aside exparte order, was wrongly dismissed vide second impugned order dtd. 27/3/2018 (Annexure P-18).