JUDGMENT Alka Sarin, J. - Heard in physical mode. 2. The present revision petition has been filed petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 17.01.2020 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad whereby the appeal filed by the defendant-respondent has been allowed. 3. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiffpetitioner instituted a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 24.04.2007 qua plot measuring 50 sq. yds. situated in Village Unchagaon, Faridabad for a total sale consideration of 21 Lacs out of which it was averred that the payment of Rs. 1,67,500/- was received by the defendantrespondent and possession was also handed over to the plaintiff-petitioner on the same date. The sale deed was to be executed upto 24.04.2008 but on the said date the defendant-respondent did not appear before the Sub Registrar. 4. The plaintiff-petitioner filed the present suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell 24.04.2007. In the suit none appeared on behalf of the defendant-respondent despite the service by munadi and he was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 27.10.2009. The suit was decreed ex parte against the defendant-respondent vide judgment and decree dated 24.04.2012. On 20.03.2014 an application was filed by the defendantrespondent under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for setting aside the ex parte order dated 27.10.2009 and judgment and decree dated 20.04.2012 on the plea that the defendant-respondent was never served and that the plaintiff-petitioner and the defendant-respondent were relatives and the plaintiff-petitioner had full knowledge about the correct address of the defendant-respondent who is a permanent resident of Meerpur Jarara, Tehsil Khurja, District Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh and the said address was never mentioned in the summons. It was further stated in the application that the defendant-respondent came to know about the ex parte order when he had appeared in another civil suit titled as 'Vimlesh Vs. Bohri' on 05.02.2014. The said application was contested by the plaintiffpetitioner and the stand taken by the plaintiff-petitioner was that the defendant-respondent intentionally did not contest the suit and instead of executing the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner alienated the suit property to one Anil Kumar Solanki son of Birpal Solanki vide registered sale deed dated 02.01.2009. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: 1. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the applicant is entitled to seek the relief of setting aside the ex parte order dated 27.10.2001 and ex parte judgment and decree dated 20.04.2012? OPA 2. Whether the applicant has no cause of action to file the present application? OPR 3. Whether the present application is not maintainable? OPR 4. Whether the application of applicant is barred by limitation? OPR 5. Whether the applicant has not come to the court with clean hand? OPR 6. Relief. 6. In support of his claim, the defendant-respondent examined AW1 Birwati and placed on record Ex.A1 copy of death certificate, Ex.A2 document issued by Sarpanch dated 01.09.2015, Ex.A3 copy of Aadhaar Card of Birmati Devi and closed his evidence. 7. To rebut the claim, the plaintiff-petitioner examined himself as RW1 and tendered in evidence the documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R6. 8. The Trial Court vide order dated 27.07.2018 dismissed the application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 27.10.2009 and ex parte judgment and decree dated 20.04.2012. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred by the defendant-respondent which was allowed vide order dated 17.01.2020. Hence, the present revision petition by the plaintiffpetitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner would contend that the defendant-respondent was duly served and even munadi was done, however, he chose not to appear before the Court and that the Trial Court had rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant-respondent. 10. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner would further contend that in execution, the sale deed was also executed on 17.12.2013 through process of the Court. 11. Heard. 12. In the present case, the defendant-respondent filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte order dated 27.10.2009 and judgment and decree dated 20.04.2012 on the plea that he was never served any notice or summons despite the fact that the plaintiff-petitioner and the defendant-respondent were relatives and the plaintiff-petitioner had full knowledge about the address of the defendantrespondent who is a permanent resident of District Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh and that the defendant-respondent came to know about the ex parte order when he had appeared in another civil suit titled as 'Vimlesh Vs. Bohri' on 05.02.2014. Bohri' on 05.02.2014. The Lower Appellate Court in the impugned order has noticed that on 29.01.2009 summons issued to the defendant-respondent at the address Adarsh Nagar, near Police Post and Vita Dairy, Ballabgarh were received back with the report of refusal. The original record of the civil suit showed that there was a report of Process Server attested by COC and on the report it had been mentioned Ba Shanakhat Mudai (on identification of plaintiff) summons were served with the report of refusal. It was apparent from endorsement that this report was attested by one Mahesh who was none other than son of the plaintiff-petitioner. It has further been noticed that when munadi was ordered on 29.01.2009 summons were also directed to be issued through registered post. However, only munadi was done and the defendant-respondent did not get the summons issued by the registered post. It has further come in evidence of the defendant-respondent that the defendant-respondent Dev Raj (deceased) was represented by his wife Birwati who was not living at the address provided by the plaintiffpetitioner in the suit. In this respect, it was brought on the record that the suit property was also sold before institution of the suit and that the deceased defendant-respondent had shifted permanently to Mirpur Jarara, Tehsil Khurja, District Bulandshahar (UP). In the evidence led by the plaintiffpetitioner, his son appeared as PW-1 and stated that deceased Dev Raj was his real maternal uncle. He had further admitted that he had identified the house for the Process Server and thereafter returned. Further, the evidence on the record, primarily the death certificate of deceased Dev Raj, clearly showed that he was a resident of Jarara Tehsil Khawaja, District Bulandshahar (UP). Ex.A-2, the certificate issued by the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Jarara, which was tendered in evidence and no objection was raised on the part of the plaintiff-petitioner to the tendering of that evidence, clearly certified that the deceased Dev Raj was residing in Jarara since January 2009. On the basis of the evidence, the Lower Appellate Court rightly came to the conclusion that the report on the summons was false and that the defendant-respondent was not residing at the given address. In view of the discussion above, argument of learned counsel for the plaintiffpetitioner that the defendant-respondent was duly served cannot be accepted. 13. On the basis of the evidence, the Lower Appellate Court rightly came to the conclusion that the report on the summons was false and that the defendant-respondent was not residing at the given address. In view of the discussion above, argument of learned counsel for the plaintiffpetitioner that the defendant-respondent was duly served cannot be accepted. 13. In view of the above, the present revision petition, which is devoid of merits, is dismissed. Dismissed.