JUDGMENT : 1. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) against the order dated 01.02.2018 passed by Additional District Judge No.1, Jaipur District, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) in Misc. Application No.6/2015 titled as Subrati Khan Vs. Chuttan Khan, by which the application filed by the defendant under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the respondent-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) had filed a suit for specific performance of the contract against the defendant on 15.09.2006. Summons were issued by the trial court on 25.02.2006 but the Process Server made a wrong remark that the defendant denied to accept the summon, so endorsement was made in presence of witnesses namely; Karim Khan and Shahid Khan. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that summon was not served upon the defendant. Process Server wrongly reported that the defendant had denied to take it in the presence of witnesses Shahid Khan and Karim Khan. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that defendant and his family members are facing the trial of criminal case as plaintiff had taken signature on the blank paper and prepared a forged agreement on it. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that defendant and his wife were not present at the house on 22.09.2006. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that plaintiff had not produced witnesses Shahid Khan and Karim Khan in his evidence. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that the trial court had not complied the provisions of Order 5 Rule 17 and 19 of the Civil Procedure Code while passing the ex-parte judgment and decree against the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that defendant is of rural background. So, he wrongly admitted the fact that he was in the village on 22.09.2006. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that defendant came to know about the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 17.12.2007 on 04.09.2015. So, he had filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree on 05.10.2015 but the trial court wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. So, order of the trial court be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Jagdish Prasad Swami Vs. Ramji Lal Joshi in S.B. Civil Misc. So, order of the trial court be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Jagdish Prasad Swami Vs. Ramji Lal Joshi in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2508/2006 decided on 19.12.2006; (2) Sushil Kumar Sabharwal Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.5111/2002 decided on 23.04.2002; (3) M/s Neerja Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Janglu (Dead) through LR in Civil Appeal No.71/2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.5847/2017) decided on 29.01.2018; (4) Pratap Vs. Hari Singh in Civil Misc. Appeal No.1417/2014 decided on 20.09.2017 and (5) State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Master & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No.1180/2004 decided on 03.08.2010. 4. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that summon was sought to be served on the defendant by Process Server Kailash Chand but he denied to take the same in presence of the witnesses Shahid Khan and Karim Khan. Defendant very well knew about the ex-parte judgment and decree passed against him. In his cross-examination, he admitted that photocopy of the judgment dated 17.12.2007 was given by someone else other than Chuttan in the year 2007. So, the trial court rightly came to the conclusion that the defendant knew the ex-parte judgment and decree passed against him in the year 2007. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff also submitted that interim order was also served to the defendant but he denied to take it. So, interim order was also pasted on his house in the presence of the witnesses Salim Khan and Nawab Khan. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff also submitted that defendant abused the Process Server. So, he is not entitled to get any relief. The order of the trial court does not suffer from illegality or infirmity. So, appeal be dismissed. 5. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) K. Panchakshara Reddy Vs. N. Krishna Reddy reported in AIR 1969 Andhra Pradesh 67 and (2) Sunil Poddar & Ors. Vs. Union Bank of India reported in (2008) 2 SCC 326 . 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant as well as learned senior counsel for the plaintiff. 7. It is an admitted position that the plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance against the defendant. Vs. Union Bank of India reported in (2008) 2 SCC 326 . 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant as well as learned senior counsel for the plaintiff. 7. It is an admitted position that the plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance against the defendant. Learned court below had issued summon to the defendant. Process Server wanted to serve the summon to the defendant but defendant denied to take it and also abused him. Process Server had made endorsement to the effect on the back of the summon. Defendant did not appear before the trial court despite service of summon. The trial court proceed ex-parte against him on 26.09.2006 and decreed the suit ex-parte against him. Defendant in his cross-examination admitted that he was in the village on 22.09.2006 which is contradictory to the pleading. Defendant also admitted that Chuttan had not given him a copy of the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2007 in the year 2007 but someone else had given him. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court rightly came to the conclusion that defendant knew about the ex-parte judgment and decree passed against him in the year 2007. So, contention of the defendant that he knew about the ex-parte judgment and decree on 04.09.2015 is misconceived. So, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. 8. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.