JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA , J. 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Murtty, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Mr. Deepak Kr. Dubey, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. The instant civil revision has been directed against the order dated 10.06.2022 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Giridih in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 04 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court upheld the order dated 25.04.2019 passed by learned Munsif, Giridih in Misc. Case No. 08 of 2013, whereby and whereunder petition filed by the petitioner under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 for setting aside ex parte decree dated 31.01.2012 passed in Eviction Suit No. 10 of 2006 by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Giridih has been dismissed. 3. I have already heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the opposite parties. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Eviction Suit No. 10 of 2006 was instituted by the plaintiff under Section 11(c) and (d) of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 i.e. on the ground of personal necessity in default of payment of rent. Ultimately, the suit was decreed ex parte and the defendant/petitioner is directed to hand over the possession of the suit premises within two months from the date of the judgment. 5. By Assailing the ex parte decree, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no summons issued by the court was ever served upon the petitioner due to incorrect address as mentioned in the plaint and as per service report of summons upon defendant no.1 (petitioner), it is reported that he has refused to receive the same and in respect of defendant no.2, it was reported that he could not met hence, his summons was affixed on the door. It is further submitted that since there is no valid service of summons on defendant no.2 as such registered notice was required to send through post-office along with summons on his correct address, but the plaintiff/opposite party dishonestly did not take any step and prayed before the concerned court for publishing the notice in daily newspaper " Prabhat Khabar" . It is further submitted that since there is no valid service of summons on defendant no.2 as such registered notice was required to send through post-office along with summons on his correct address, but the plaintiff/opposite party dishonestly did not take any step and prayed before the concerned court for publishing the notice in daily newspaper " Prabhat Khabar" . It is further submitted that petitioner is illiterate person and earns his livelihood by selling vegetables, therefore, he could not read the newspaper, hence could not know about the institution of the aforesaid eviction suit and did not appear to contest the same which was decreed ex parte against both the defendants. It is further submitted that the defendant no.1 was purposely pleaded as party although he had nothing to do with the suit premises rather defendant no.2 (petitioner) who is coming in peaceful possession of the suit premises on his own rights as purchaser alongwith one Md. Mumtaj Alam through registered sale deed dated 22.08.2004 from one Binod Ram (Grand-son of Khatiyani Raiyat) which is situated over Khata No. 37, Plot No. 806, Area 01 Decimal (480 Sq. ft) out of total area 14 decimal. The purchasers have also got mutation in their favour vide Mutation Case No. 1039 of 1011 and paying rent for the same. It is further submitted that the petitioner is residing at Sabji Mohalla, Bazaar Pachamba as mentioned in his Aadhar Card also. It is further submitted that the petitioner came to know about impugned ex parte decree on 05.04.2013, when notice was served to him in execution Case No. 11/12 directing him to appear on 17.04.2013 in the execution case, hence, the petitioner filed a Misc. Case No. 08 of 2013 for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 27.01.2012/ 31.01.2012 passed in Eviction Suit No. 10 of 2006 which was dismissed vide order dated 25.04.2019 by learned Munsif, Giridih and then petitioner filed Civil Misc. Appeal No. 04 of 2019 which was also dismissed by Principal District Judge, Giridih vide order dated 10.06.2022. As such petitioner has illegally been deprived of his rights to contest the suit although, he has very good case on merits claiming the suit property of his own right obtained through registered sale deed executed by the rightful owner. Appeal No. 04 of 2019 which was also dismissed by Principal District Judge, Giridih vide order dated 10.06.2022. As such petitioner has illegally been deprived of his rights to contest the suit although, he has very good case on merits claiming the suit property of his own right obtained through registered sale deed executed by the rightful owner. Therefore, impugned orders requires to be set aside and the original suit be restored to its original number and the petitioner may be provided an opportunity to contest the same on merits. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Opp. Party/plaintiff has vehemently argued that the suit was instituted on 30.11.2006 which was admitted on 22.05.2007. The summons were issued against the defendants through process of Court as well as registered summons acknowledgement deed. The main defendant no.1 declined to receive the notice as noted by the process server and mentioned in the order- sheet dated 14.09.2007. The defendant nos. 2 (present petitioner) who was occupying the suit premises as a sub-lessee as defendant no.1 had gone outside and his summon was pasted on the door wherein he was residing. The notices sent through post were also not returned thereafter, the plaintiff/respondent prayed for publication of summons in local circulating newspaper "Prabhat Khabar". Accordingly, the notice was published, thereafter the suit was rightly proceeded ex parte. It is further submitted that the defendant no.1 (Abdul Razak), who was inducted as tenant by father of the plaintiff over the suit premises and was engaged in vegetable selling business has not filed any application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC rather the defendant no.2 who happens to be sub-lessee of the defendant no.1 filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC solely on the ground that there was no correct address of the defendant. It is further submitted that learned trial court as well as learned appellate court in petition filed by the present petitioner under Order IX Rule 13 CPC has disclosed the same and correct address as was mentioned in the plaint. Therefore, the plea taken by the petitioner is absolutely false and rightly not relied by the learned trial court. Further, this petitioner claims to have the purchased the suit property from a stranger and claims his title over the suit premises which cannot be decided in the eviction suit. Therefore, the plea taken by the petitioner is absolutely false and rightly not relied by the learned trial court. Further, this petitioner claims to have the purchased the suit property from a stranger and claims his title over the suit premises which cannot be decided in the eviction suit. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order calling for any interference which is fit to be dismissed. 7. I have gone through the order passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Giridih as well learned appellate court and also perused the relevant order sheets from the trial court record, it appears that eviction suit has been instituted against defendant no.1 Abdul Razak who had approached the father of the plaintiff and was inducted as a tenant over the suit premises for running his business of selling vegetables on monthly rental. The rent was subsequently enhanced from time to time, but the defendant no.1 not only defaulted in payment of rent, but also inducted defendant no.2 Mohd. Shaukat (petitioner) as a sub-tenant under him. The plaintiff himself reasonably and bona fide required the suit premises and filed this suit. During the pendency of the suit the original plaintiff (Lakhan Ram) was died and his sons were substituted and contest the suit. It appears that the main defendant no.1 declined to receive the summons and did not appear to contest the suit inspite of publication of summons in the local circulating newspaper "Prabhat Khabar". He has also filed no application to set aside the ex parte decree passed against him. It further appears that the sole ground taken by the petitioner that his address was not rightly mentioned in the plaint is also not sustainable as he himself contesting the petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC as well as Misc. Appeal filed by him showing his address as mentioned in the plaint. Therefore, so far service of summons is concerned it will be deemed proper against the petitioner. The next question of fact for consideration as to whether the petitioner was prevented from appearing and contesting the suit due to any sufficient reasons. In this connection also nothing has been opined by the petitioner showing any exceptional circumstances or hardship to be considered as sufficient cause to prevent him from appearing and contesting the eviction suit filed by the plaintiff. In this connection also nothing has been opined by the petitioner showing any exceptional circumstances or hardship to be considered as sufficient cause to prevent him from appearing and contesting the eviction suit filed by the plaintiff. The story of receiving of notice only at the stage of execution does not appear to be convincing. I further find that both the courts below have applied their judicial mind towards the circumstances brought on record by the petitioner and rightly rejected his prayer for setting aside the ex parte decree in eviction suit no. 10 of 2006. 8. In view of aforesaid discussion and reasons, I find no merits in this revision which stands dismissed. 9. Pending I.As, if any stand disposed of. 10. Let the copy of this judgment be sent to concerned trial court for information and needful.