JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present petition is preferred against the judgment and order dated 01.10.2007, passed by the Revisional Court / District Judge, Haridwar in Civil Revision No. 73 of 2007, Anil Kumar Vs. Sudesh Kumar Arora and others, whereby order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), dated 23.07.2007, allowing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. moved by the petitioners was set aside and application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that plaintiff respondent No. 4 herein has filed O.S. No. 151 of 2005, Anil Kumar Vs. Sudesh Kumar Arora and others in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haridwar for permanent prohibitory injunction stating therein that defendant No. 3 (respondent No. 2 herein) and defendant No. 4 (respondent No. 3 herein) were husband and wife; there was mutual partition between the husband and wife; after mutual partition between defendant Nos. 3 and 4 (respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein), defendant No. 3 (respondent No.2 herein) has sold the entire ½ share of the his property, in question, in favour of the plaintiff (respondent No. 4 herein) vide sale deed dated 17.08.2003; from the date of sale deed, plaintiff (respondent No.4 herein) has been enjoying the possession; however, defendants were threatening the plaintiff to dis-possess from the property, in question, therefore, defendants be restrained from making any interference in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. 3. In the plaint so filed, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 petitioners herein) were shown resident of New Krishnanagar Colony, Kankhal, District Haridwar; defendant Nos. 3 and 4 (respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein) wherefrom plaintiffs has allegedly purchased the property, in question, did not contest the suit nor were supposed to contest the suit; however, suit was decreed ex-parte against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (petitioners herein), vide judgment and decree dated 13.01.2006. 4. Having acquired knowledge about the ex-party decree against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (petitioners herein), an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. was moved before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) for recalling / setting aside the ex party judgment and decree dated 13.01.2006. It is alleged in the application that defendant Nos. 4. Having acquired knowledge about the ex-party decree against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (petitioners herein), an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. was moved before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) for recalling / setting aside the ex party judgment and decree dated 13.01.2006. It is alleged in the application that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (petitioners herein) were not residing in New Krishnanagar Colony, Kankhal, District Haridwar for last ten years and were, in fact, residing in House No. 224, Section-3, Pocket E-20, Rohini, Delhi-85; no notice was ever sent to the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (petitioners herein) at their Rohini, Delhi address; nor defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (petitioners herein) acquired any knowledge about the pendency of the suit and they came to know about the ex-party judgment and decree on 12.04.2006 and, thereafter, application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. was moved. 5. Against the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., reply was filed by the plaintiff (respondent No. 4 herein) stating therein that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (petitioners herein) in fact refused to accept the summons sent by the Trial Court. Reply in the same line was also filed by defendant Nos. 3 and 4 (respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein). 6. Learned Trial Court, having believed the version of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (petitioners herein) that at the time of service of summons they were not residing at Kankhal, Haridwar and were in fact residing in Rohini, Delhi held that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (petitioners) were not served. Having held so, learned Trial Court, vide order dated 23.07.2007 was pleased to set aside the ex-party judgment and decree and was further pleased to restore the suit at its original number. 7. Judgment and order dated 23.07.2007 was assailed by the plaintiff (respondent No.4) in Civil Revision No. 73 of 2007 under Section 115 of C.P.C. before the learned District Judge, Haridwar. 8. Learned District Judge, Haridwar in the impugned judgment dated 01.10.2007 has held that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (petitioners) could not prove that they were in fact residing at Delhi for last ten years. Having observed so, learned Disrict Judge was pleased to allow the Civil Revision vide judgment / order impugned herein. Feeling aggrieved, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (petitioners herein) have filed present writ petition. 9. 1 and 2 (petitioners) could not prove that they were in fact residing at Delhi for last ten years. Having observed so, learned Disrict Judge was pleased to allow the Civil Revision vide judgment / order impugned herein. Feeling aggrieved, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (petitioners herein) have filed present writ petition. 9. I have heard Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. A.K. Joshi, Addl. C.S.C. for respondent No.1 and Mr. Nagesh Agarwal, Advoate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 10. Undisputedly process server who has taken the summons against the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 (petitioners herein) has reported that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (petitioners herein) were not residing at the given address in the plaint. Despite the specific report of the process server, service was held to be sufficient by refusal. 11. It is important to mention herein that plaintiff could not place on record any material to say that in fact defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (petitioners herein) were residing New Krishnanagar Colony, Kankhal, District Haridwar at the time of institution of the suit and at the time of sending the notice / summons to the defendants. Moreover, there is no specific denial by the plaintiff in the reply to the application under Section 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. that address given of Rohini, Delhi in the application is wrong and in fact defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are still residing in New Krishnanagar Colony, Kankhal, District Haridwar. If there is no specific denial of the pleadings, it should be deemed to have been admitted as per Rule 5 Order 8 C.P.C. 12. It is settled position of law that Revisional Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 C.P.C., ordinarily, shall not substitute its own findings of fact. Moreover, in view of the report of process server that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (petitioners herein) were not found residing at Kankhal address, case of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (petitioners herein) that in fact they were not residing at Kankhal Haridwar at the address given in the plaint and in fact were residing in Delhi for last 7 years stand proved. 13. Non service of summons on the defendant is one of the sufficient grounds to set aside the ex-party judgment and decree. 14. 1 and 2 (petitioners herein) that in fact they were not residing at Kankhal Haridwar at the address given in the plaint and in fact were residing in Delhi for last 7 years stand proved. 13. Non service of summons on the defendant is one of the sufficient grounds to set aside the ex-party judgment and decree. 14. There is yet another aspect of the matter that every lis, as far as possible, should be decided after giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to both the parties and ordinarily walk over should not be allowed in favour of either of the parties. 15. Since discretion was rightly exercised in favour of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (petitioners herein), therefore, same discretion ought not to have been disturbed in the fashion as learned Revisional Court did. 16. For the reasons recorded hereinbefore, petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Revisional Court/District Judge, Haridwar is hereby set aside. Judgment passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) dated 23rd July, 2007 is restored. 17. No order as to cost.