GURPARTAP SINGH Vs. RAJINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 23.8.2004 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Khanna vide which application moved by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 3.8.2000, has been ordered to be dismissed.

(2.) THE respondent landlord has filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner from the tenanted premises. Due to non-appearance of the petitioner ex parte proceedings were ordered and resultantly ex parte decree of ejectment was passed. Thereafter petitioner moved an application for setting aside the said ex parte order passed by the learned Rent Controller primarily on the ground that no service was effected on the petitioner. However, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the application by invoking the proviso to Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Gurinder Singh Sodhi v. Ramesh Kumari and others, 1997(3) RCR(Civil) 36 : 1997(2) Civil Court Cases 23 (P&H) to contend that the Court is bound to serve the parties personally and in case the defendant refuses to accept the service or cannot be found then the summons to be affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house where the defendant ordinarily resides or carries on his business or personally works for gain. It has further been argued that mere informing the petitioner about the pendency of suit does not absolve the Court of performing its duties. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ajit Singh v. Santokh Singh, 2004 RCR(Civil) 13 to contend that it was incumbent upon the Court to record that it was not possible to serve a party by ordinary means before ordering substituted service. The final contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order may be set aside on payment of costs.