JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.: - Petitioners have filed this petition challenging the orders dated 25.2.2011 (Annexure P-9) and 30.4.2013 (Annexure P-10). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that service had not been effected on the petitioners. Hence, they had no knowledge about the suit filed by the respondent. In these circumstances, the ex parte decree passed by the Trial Court against the petitioners was liable to be set aside. Petitioners had examined hand writing expert to establish that the summons alleged to have been signed by petitioner No. 2, did not bear his signatures. 3. In the present case, respondent had filed suit for damages against the petitioners and Indian Oil Corporation. In the said suit, respondent-Indian Oil Corporation was represented by its counsel whereas the petitioners were proceeded ex parte. The suit filed by the respondent was decreed on 27.5.2004 for recovery of Rs.2,92,000/- along with interest and costs against the petitioners. So far as the Indian Oil Corporation was concerned, the suit qua the company was dismissed. 4. Order dated 30.1.2002 passed by the Trial Court whereby petitioners were proceed ex parte, reads as under:- “Defendants No. 1 & 2 not present despite service personally through Om Parkash S/o Sh. Ram Chander, the case has been called several times since morning, but none appeared on behalf of defendant No. 1 and 2. It is 3.45 P.M. No further wait is justified. Hence the defendant No. 1 and 2 are proceeded against ex parte. Vakalatnama on behalf of defendant No. 3 filed by Sh. S.K.Khanna Advocate. A date is requested. To come upon 3.5.2002 for filing the w.s.” 5. Petitioners moved an application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 30.1.2002 as well as the judgment and decree dated 27.5.2004. However, the said application was dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated 25.2.2011. Appeal filed by the petitioners against the said order was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide order dated 30.4.2013. Hence, the present petition by the petitioners. 6. The Courts below vide the impugned orders have held that the Process Server who had effected service on the petitioners, had been duly examined as RW-1 and he stated that petitioner No. 2 had put his signatures on the summons. The Courts below rightly held that there was no reason to disbelieve the statement of the Process Server. 6. The Courts below vide the impugned orders have held that the Process Server who had effected service on the petitioners, had been duly examined as RW-1 and he stated that petitioner No. 2 had put his signatures on the summons. The Courts below rightly held that there was no reason to disbelieve the statement of the Process Server. So far as the expert examined by the petitioners is concerned, his report has been rightly disbelieved by the Courts below as it is generally seen that an expert gives his opinion in favour of the party who has engaged him. So far as the Process Server of the Court is concerned, he had no ill will against the petitioners to have made a false report against them. Although, Trial Court had ordered service on the defendants through registered post but the staff had issued dasti process. The said irregularity in service of summons fails to advance the case of the petitioners as the petitioners had been duly served on 20.12.2001 and signature of petitioner No. 2 Om Parkash are appeared on the summons. Application for setting aside the ex parte judgment/decree was moved on 29.9.2009 after a long time. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Courts below had rightly dismissed the application moved by the petitioners seeking setting aside of the ex parte order dated 30.1.2002 and judgment and decree dated 27.5.2004. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. ------------------