JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - Petitioners Kamal Kant and Murari, defendants No. 9 and 11 respectively, have filed the present revision and it has been directed against the order dated 14.10.2000 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sirsa, who declined their application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC. 2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner :- Jain Mandir Parath Nath and 11 others filed a suit for possession against Smt. Sita Devi and 11 others including the present two petitioners Kamal Kant and Murari on the basis of the title of land measuring 111 kanals comprised in various khasra numbers as mentioned in the jamabandi for the year 1987-88, situated at village Ellenabad, District Sirsa on the plea that all the defendants are in unauthorised possession of the suit land. They also made a prayer for mandatory injunction directing all the defendants to deposit a sum of Rs. 40,000/- for each crop of way of mesne profits. 3. Notice of the suit was given to the defendants. Earlier Raju, who was also a co-defendant with Kamal Kant and Murari, received the notice on behalf of these two defendants. The service was witnessed by Puran Chand son of Devi Lal. The petitioners did not appear on 15.4.1996, the date fixed in the trial Court. By way of abundant caution the trial Court ordered that these defendants be served by way of Munadi and Munadi was also effected by the process server through the agency of Karam Chand Chowkidar of village Ellenabad. The report of Munadi was attested by Kailash Chand and Karam Chand Chowkidar. On the basis of this Munadi report, the defendants did not appear even on 28.5.1996 and they were proceeded against ex parte. The application was earlier moved under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC which was not legally maintainable because no decree was passed. Later on it was amended under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC. 4. Be that as it may, the point for determination in this case is whether the defendants were duly served or not. The learned trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioners mainly for the reasons given in para Nos. 6 to 12 of the impugned order, which read as follows :- "6. 4. Be that as it may, the point for determination in this case is whether the defendants were duly served or not. The learned trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioners mainly for the reasons given in para Nos. 6 to 12 of the impugned order, which read as follows :- "6. The perusal of the summons dated 2.3.1996 issued for 15.4.1996 shows that the same was received by Raju, defendant No. 10, on behalf of Kamal Kant and Murari Lal applicants. The aforesaid summons is duly served by the process server as well as witnessed by Puran Chand son of Devi Lal, r/o Ellenabad. When the applicants/defendants did not appear on 15.4.96, the then ld. Addl. Civil Judge, vide order dated 15.4.96 ordered the service of applicants/defendants through Munadi, on which date defendant No. 10 who received the summons of applicants also, proceeded against ex parte as he did not appear despite his service. Till date, there is no affidavit or other record on the file to show that he did not receive the summons on behalf of his brothers Kamal Kant and Murari Lal defendants No. 9 and 11 respectively. No denial of Raju regarding the appending of his signatures on the summons dated 15.4.1996 till date. As per Order 5 Rule 15 CPC "Where in any suit the defendant is absent from his residence at the time when the service of summons is sought to be effected on him at his residence and there is no likelihood of his being found at the residence within a reasonable time and he has no agent empowered to accept service of the summons of his behalf, service may be made on any adult member of the family, whether male or female, who is residing with him." Hence the receipt of summons on behalf of applicants by Raju is a complete service qua the applicants also. However, the then Presiding Officer ordered the service of the remaining defendants including the applicant through Munadi for 28.5.96. The Munadi was also received back duly served effected. The perusal of munadi also shows that it was effected by the process server through the agency of Karan Chand Chowkidar of the village Ellenabad. This munadi is again attested by one Kailash Chand son of Brahma Nand and Karam Chand, Chowkidar. The Munadi was also received back duly served effected. The perusal of munadi also shows that it was effected by the process server through the agency of Karan Chand Chowkidar of the village Ellenabad. This munadi is again attested by one Kailash Chand son of Brahma Nand and Karam Chand, Chowkidar. This munadi is also duly effected by the process server and thereafter when the applicants/defendants along with the other defendants did not appear on 28.5.1996, the present applicant/defendants along with other defendants were proceeded against ex parte on 28.5.1996. 7. However, the contention of Sh. M.S. Fazil, learned counsel for the applicants/defendants No. 9 and 11 is that Karam Chand Chowkidar never made the munadi in the village Ellenabad, on the date shown in the munadi. Applicants have also placed on record the affidavit of Karam Chand Chowkidar in support of their contention that no munadi was effected in the village Ellenabad qua the applicants/defendants. However, the persual of affidavit dated 28.8.2000 filed by Karam Chand shows that Karam Chand Chowkidar did not depose in clear out terms that he did not effect any munadi in the village. He has deposed that he is an illiterate person and there is a problem in the eye sight. Hence, several times on the asking of some very known person and on their faith he puts his thumb impression on some documents. But so far he remembers, he did not append his thumb impression on any Court document on 6.5.1996 in May 1996. Therefore, this affidavit dated 28.8.2000 placed on record by the applicants/defendants is also not help to them as it is a very evasive which has been filed just to falsify the munadi effected against the defendants. 8. Sh. M.S. Fazil also contended that applicants/defendants No. 9 and 11 do not reside in the village Ellenabad and the munadi was effected in the village Ellenabad which is a town. The correct address of the applicants/defendants have not been given in order to cause harm to the applicants/defendants as the applicant Murari is doing the business at Jhotwarat Jaipur (Rajasthan) and applicant Kamal Kant is doing the business at Patrer (Patpar ?) Ganj Delhi. However, this contention of Sh. The correct address of the applicants/defendants have not been given in order to cause harm to the applicants/defendants as the applicant Murari is doing the business at Jhotwarat Jaipur (Rajasthan) and applicant Kamal Kant is doing the business at Patrer (Patpar ?) Ganj Delhi. However, this contention of Sh. M.S. Fazil falls in its own weight because the plaintiffs have placed on record the certified copy of the plaint filed by the present applicants against Mohan Lal defendant No. 1 and other persons wherein they have shown their address as resident of village Ellenabad, Tehsil Ellenabad, Distt. Sirsa and that suit was filed by the plaintiff/applicants on 22.2.96 and the service of summons on the plaintiff/applicants was effected for 1.3.1996, 15.4.1996 and 18.5.1996 i.e. after the filing of suit No. 189 of 1996 titled as Kamal Kumar etc. Vs. Mohan Lal etc. and therefore, the judgment in Civil Writ Petition No. 794 of 1985 published in All India Land Laws Reporter 1986(1) at Page 538 is not applicable to the present case as in the aforesaid case, it was observed by the Honble High Court that it was the duty of the official concerned to have mentioned specifically as to what was pronounced so that the Court could find out whether the provisions of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 had been complied with. However, with due deference, there is no dispute about the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid authority but these observations of the Honble High Court in regard to Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, the present case is a suit for possession over the suit land and the compliance has to be seen of Order 5 of the CPC and not of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Similarly, the authority relied upon by Sh. M.S. Fazil titled as Yad Ram v. Capt. Ram Avtar, 2000(1) C.C. Cases 346 (P&H) in support of his contention that when the summons are not properly addressed on a correct address of the defendant, the ex parte proceedings are liable to be set aside is also not applicable to facts of the case. M.S. Fazil titled as Yad Ram v. Capt. Ram Avtar, 2000(1) C.C. Cases 346 (P&H) in support of his contention that when the summons are not properly addressed on a correct address of the defendant, the ex parte proceedings are liable to be set aside is also not applicable to facts of the case. Admittedly, there is no dispute about the proposition of law as given in the aforesaid authority by the Honble High Court but as stated above, the applicant themselves has shown to be resident of Ellenabad in the suit filed by them titled as Kamal Kumar etc. v. Mohan Lal etc. bearing No. 189 of 1996. Therefore, on this score also, the service effected upon them in the village Ellenabad cannot be defaulted. 9. Moreover, Honble Rajasthan High Court in the case titled as Swami Bharat Satyrathi @ Bharat Singh v. Nanen & others, 2000(1) LJR 253, has observed that when the defendants had got notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiffs claim, mere irregularity in services of summons on him cannot be held to be a valid and sufficient ground for setting aside the impugned order to proceed ex parte. In the case in hand, Punni Devi the mother of the applicants is contesting the suit from the day one through his counsel Sh. Rajesh Sethi. Raju, the brother of applicants/defendants No. 9 and 11 was also duly served who accepted the service on behalf of the applicants also, had the notice of the suit. Therefore, when the mother of the applicants is contesting the present suit, therefore, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be accepted that the applicant had no notice of the present suit and when they have notice of the suit, even if there is any irregularity in the service of summons on them it is not a sufficient ground for setting aside the ex parte proceedings. 10. Admittedly, there is no limitation for setting aside the ex parte proceedings. In this regard reference can be made to the authority of Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case titled as Kulbir Kaur v. Gurdeep Singh, 1993(3) L.J.R. 298, wherein it was held so. 10. Admittedly, there is no limitation for setting aside the ex parte proceedings. In this regard reference can be made to the authority of Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case titled as Kulbir Kaur v. Gurdeep Singh, 1993(3) L.J.R. 298, wherein it was held so. But the applicants despite their notice institution of the present suit against them deliberately did not appear in the Court to contest the suit since 28.5.1996 and filed the present application on 21.7.2000 when the case was already fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments. 11. Honble High Court in the C.R. No. 3095 of 1999 titled as Ratan Lal and others v. Jain Mandir Parath Nath etc., filed by the defendant No. 3 and others has observed that the learned Trial Court shall dispose of the matter expeditiously. Hence, the present application filed by the applicants/defendants No. 9 and 11 for setting aside the ex parte proceedings after a period of more than 4 years shows that they as mis-using the process of law for stalling the disposal of the present suit expeditiously which pertains to the year 1995. 12. In view of the above discussion the applications under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC as well as under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC filed by the applicants/defendants No. 9 and 11 are being devoid of merit and accordingly the same are dismissed." 5. I have heard Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners, who vehemently submitted that there was no due service on behalf of the petitioners. He relies upon the affidavit of Karam Chand Chowkidar, who stated that in his presence no Munadi was effected by the process server. The counsel submitted that earlier the petitioners were allegedly served through Raju, who also did not appear in the trial Court. The present petitioners have the independent right to contest the suit. 6. I have considered the submissions raised by the counsel for the petitioners and have come to this conclusion that the present petitioners Kamal Kant and Murari were served by way of Munadi and they want to drag the proceedings to the disadvantage of the plaintiffs. There is hardly any good ground for setting aside the ex parte order and, therefore, I endorse the reasons adopted by the trial Court in dismissing the application of the petitioners under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC. 7. There is hardly any good ground for setting aside the ex parte order and, therefore, I endorse the reasons adopted by the trial Court in dismissing the application of the petitioners under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC. 7. Faced with this difficulty the learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon Order 5 Rule 19 CPC and also relies upon Satbir Singh v. Kidar Singh, 1998(2) PLJ 392, Yad Ram v. Capt. Ram Avtar, 2000(1) C.C.C. 346, Rattan Singh v. Sardool Singh, 2000(2) C.C.C. 144, Sukhvinder Singh v. Chhotta Singh, 1996(2) C.C.C. 377 and G.P. Srivastva v. R.K. Raizada, 2000(1) RCR(Civil) 161. These authorities are distinguishable on facts and are not applicable to the present case. No merit. Dismissed. Revision dismissed.