(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 31.10.2008, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Una in Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2007.
(2.) Material facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the Petitioner-Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'the Plaintiff' for convenience sake), has instituted a Civil Suit bearing No. 37 of 1993, for specific performance of contract against the Respondents-Defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'the Defendants' for brevity sake). According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant No. 1, namely, Shri Pheenu Ram alias Ashwani Kumar has entered into an agreement for the sale of land measuring 015-36 hectares, vide agreement dated 08.05.1992 for a consideration of 20,000/-. The said amount was paid to him and Defendant No. 1 executed a receipt in token of 20,000/-. The sale deed was agreed to be executed on or before 30.06.1992, but Defendant No. 1 did not honor the agreement. He transferred the land to Defendant No. 2 by way of release deed. The Defendants are brother and sister. Defendant No. 1 did not execute the sale deed and in these circumstances, the suit for specific performance of contract was filed by the Plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 was issued notices number of times and ultimately, he was served by the Process-server with the notice of the suit on 03.03.1996 for 29.04.1996. According to the Plaintiff, the Process-server served the notice of the suit upon Defendant No. 1. He obtained the signatures and thumb impression of Defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 did not appear pursuant to service of summons and was proceeded ex parte by the learned Sub-Judge-I, Una on 29.04.1996. Learned trial Court passed the ex parte decree on 13.09.1999. The Defendant No. 1 moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 1, Una, for setting aside the ex parte order dated 29.04.1996 and ex parte decree dated 13.09.1999 on 16.09.2000, which was assigned C.M.A. No. 260 of 2000. Plaintiff filed reply to the same. According to the averments contained in the application, preferred under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the applicant Pheenu Ram @ Ashwani Kumar was not served with summons and, in fact, he was missing from 1992 to 1998. He has neither signed nor put thumb impression on the summons. He came to know about the judgment and decree dated 13.09.1999, when he received the summons in Execution Petition on 25.08.2000. According to the averments contained in the reply, the summons were issued by the Court and were duly received by the applicant under his signatures and thumb impression in the presence of process-server. However, he did not appear and was proceeded ex parte on 29.04.1996. Trial Court dismissed the application on 27.10.2006. Defendant No. 1 preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Una. The same was allowed on 31.10.2008. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition against the judgment dated 31.10.2008. The notices were issued to the Respondents on 19.11.2008. The service was complete, however, neither the Respondents have appeared in person nor were represented by any counsel.
(3.) Mr. Naresh Thakur, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has strenuously argued that the judgment dated 31.10.2008, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Una is contrary to law. According to him, Defendant No. 1 Shri Pheenu Ram alias Ashwani Kumar was duly served and has put his signatures and thumb impression on the summons. He further contended that the Defendant No. 1 was aware of the proceedings pending before the trial Court since he was also appearing in criminal cases Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-3 between 1993 to 1998 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Una.