SUKHBIR Vs. MATESHWAR DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the civil revision by the judgment debtor whose application to set aside the ex parte decree passed on 30.10.1999 on the ground that he had not been served with suit summons was dismissed. The appeal to the appellate court was also dismissed.

(2.) THE appellate authority, while rejecting the appeal, has considered the fact that the contention put forward by him that he had not been served with summons was not true. The decree holder had examined Court bailiff as RW -3 who has spoken to the fact that he actually effected the service and he can even identify the party in Court. The signature found in the document of summons and the signatures found in another admitted documents A -1 to A -11 had been subjected to appraisal by an expert who was examined as RW -5 and he has affirmed that the summons bore signature of the judgment debtor. The Rent controller himself has carried out a comparison of signatures and the appellate court has also observed Civil Revision No. 333 of 2006(O & M) -2 that the signatures found in the document with the naked eye tallied with the signature of the judgment debtor. The identity of the signatures found in the summons with the judgment debtor and the effect of the actual service of summons have been referred by the two Courts below on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. The ex parte order of eviction was passed on 30.10.1999. For the last 10 years the case is only caught up in adjudication whether summons have been served or not.

(3.) THERE is no error in the order passed by the Rent Controller or the appellate authority and there is no scope for interference in revision petition.