JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of the lower revisional court dated 08.12.2011, passed by the 1st F.T.C./Additional District Judge, Haridwar in Civil Revision No.94 of 2007 (Ramesh Vs. Dinesh Kumar), by which the earlier order granted in favour of the petitioner/defendant under Order 9 Rule 13 has been set aside. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a registered agreement for sale was executed between the present petitioner and one Mr. Ramesh Kumar (plaintiff/respondent no.2 herein) on 10.02.1998 for sale of a piece of an agricultural land. As per the terms of the agreement for sale, the sale deed was to be executed on 10.02.1999. The plaintiff/respondent no.2, alleges that he was always ready to perform his part of contract but the petitioner/ defendant did not come forward for executing the sale-deed. Hence after giving him a notice on 16.02.1999, he was constrained to file a suit for specific performance on 15.05.2000. On 18.09.2000 notice was personally served to the defendant/petitioner and a report to that effect was also filed by the process server. However, since the defendant/petitioner did not put in his appearance, the matter proceeded ex-parte against him. The suit was ultimately decreed on 05.12.2001. Thereafter, the plaintiff/decree holder moved an execution case in which summons were sent to the judgment debtor/defendant, however, the summons were returned with a report that he has refused to take the summons. 3. The sale deed was executed by the orders of the Court. The defendant/petitioner for the first time moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 on 16th May, 2005 i.e. after a period of almost 5 years since the alleged notice was served upon him. The plea which he takes in his application under Order 9 Rule 13 is two fold, (a) he states that he received information for the first time on 27.04.2005 when he was under the custody of the police and was being taken from Roshnabad Jail for judicial custody in the locker. He was informed by his brother Kuldeep Kumar that on 25.04.2005 certain persons having the order of the Civil Court, along with the Court Amin, had come to take possession of the land but he resisted and, therefore, the possession could not be given to them. He was informed by his brother Kuldeep Kumar that on 25.04.2005 certain persons having the order of the Civil Court, along with the Court Amin, had come to take possession of the land but he resisted and, therefore, the possession could not be given to them. It was the Court Amin who told the defendant’s brother Kuldeep Kumar that against the defendant there was an ex-parte judgment in Civil Suit No.87 of 2000 (Ramesh Vs. Dinesh) on 23.11.2001 and the decree dated 05.10.2001 and, therefore, in short the defendant pleaded that he had knowledge of said decree on 27.04.2005 i.e. prior to 2004-2005 he did not receive any oral or written order from any other source. 4. An objection has been raised that by the learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent Sri Lokpal Singh that even in application there was no specific plea that in the summons there is no signature of the petitioner/defendant in the summons. Be that as it may, from the record and particularly from the order of the revisional court, it is clear that the petitioner/defendant made an application that his signature in the summons be examined and be verified, however, it appears that petitioner/defendant did not press his application but the Court on its own examined two signatures, (a) signature of the applicant on the summons , and (b) the signature in the agreement for sale; and he came to the conclusion and gave a finding that the summons have not been served upon the petitioner/defendant, as the signatures do not tally, consequently he allowed his application under Order 9 Rule 13. 5. It is this order which was challenged in the revision which has been allowed. The finding given by the revisional court is that once such application was made by the defenand the court ought to have examined the matter in the light of Section 73 of the Evidence Act and since the question before him was for the first time for determination of the two signatures, but he did not proceed in accordance with Section 73 of Evidence Act and more particularly he did not call for the examination of the signature by an expert. There are other anomalies pointed out by the revisional court itself. This is the order of the revisional court which has been challenged before this Court. There are other anomalies pointed out by the revisional court itself. This is the order of the revisional court which has been challenged before this Court. Though what is primarily to be seen in an application under Order 9 Rule 13 is the bona fide of the applicant. If the notices were not served upon him and there were valid and bonafide reasons for him for not approaching the Court for defending the matter, such an application is liable to be allowed as the fundamental principle is that parties must be heard before an order is passed against them. 6. However, in the present case, such a benefit cannot be given to the defendant/petitioner for the simple reason that he has not been able to establish his bona fide in the matter for the following reasons:- (a) firstly the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure is highly belated filed after five years of the initial service of summons and after almost three and half years when the suit was decreed. (b) secondly, in order to establish his claim that he was “prevented by sufficient cause” for not appearing when the suit was called for hearing, the plea taken by the defendant/petitioner is that he was in judicial custody and it was during his custody that he was informed about the suit and the decree passed thereto by his brother Kuldeep Kumar. The Sessions Trial of which the petitioner says that he was in custody is of 2004. The summons, however, are alleged to have been served in 2000 itself. It is not the case of the defendant that he was in jail in 2000. (c) thirdly, what clinches the matter against the defendant/petitioner is that the land in question of which there was a registered agreement for sale dated 10.02.1998, was subsequently sold by the defendant to his own brothers Kuldeep Kumar and Sanjay Kumar. This is so, where the defendant/petitioner himself admits the claim of the plaintiff on the basis of the registered agreement for sale when he does not deny the veracity of the agreement to sale executed between him and the plaintiff on 10.02.1998. (d) fourthly, it is also the case of the plaintiff before this Court that the brothers of the present petitioner/defendant Kuldeep Kumar as well as Sanjay Kumar were also the party in the execution proceedings. (d) fourthly, it is also the case of the plaintiff before this Court that the brothers of the present petitioner/defendant Kuldeep Kumar as well as Sanjay Kumar were also the party in the execution proceedings. They were also sent notices and they too refused to take such notices. 7. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the case as it emerges is that the petitioner /defendant has not been able to prove his case for any interference under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, primarily because the applicant has not been able to establish his bona fide. The lower revisional court, therefore, has rightly allowed the revision. 8. In view thereof, no interference in the order 08.12.2011 is called for. The writ petition is hereby dismissed.