Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.This petition is filed against the order dated 16.08.2014, allowing the application filed by the defendants under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (here-in-after referred to as the "CPC"), setting aside the ex parte order dated 28.06.2007 and ex parte judgment and decree dated 17.03.2008. The plaintiff-petitioner filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 11.05.2007 for a sum of Rs. 6,45,000/- in respect of land measuring 3 kanal 17 marlas, out of which Rs. 6,00,000/- was paid as advance and the remaining amount was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. In the said suit, the defendant was allegedly served through the Process Server and proceeded against ex parte on 28.06.2007, followed by ex parte judgment and decree dated 17.03.2008.

2. The defendant Rati Ram filed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside both the aforesaid orders dated 28.06.2007 and 17.03.2008 alleging that he acquired the knowledge of the ex parte decree on 28.08.2008 when he received the notice from the Collector under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (here-in-after referred to as the "Act").

3. The plaintiff had alleged that after the decree dated 17.03.2008, the sale deed was executed on payment of balance sale consideration and a mutation was also sanctioned on 19.07.2008 and since then, the plaintiff has become owner of the suit property and filed objections under Sections 5A and 9 of the Act before the Collector and also received the compensation in terms of the award passed by the Collector and has preferred objections under Section 18 of the Act. Thus, it is alleged that the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2008 has already been implemented in its letter and spirit and now the application for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree is meaningless.

4. The trial Court framed as many as 6 issues. Both the parties led their respective evidence. It came to the conclusion that when dasti summons were served, the Process Server was not accompanied by any person who could recognize the defendant Rati Ram. The Process Server himself admitted in his cross-examination that he did not take any person like Chowkidar and Lambardar with him and had no personal acquaintance with :he said Rati Ram. As a result thereof, the trial Court has allowed the application, setting aside the order of proceeding against the defendant ex parte and the ex parte judgment and decree.

5. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Court below has committed an error as the signatures on the dasti summons have been identified by the Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert and the other evidence on record proves that the defendant has been personally served by the Process Server.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and examining the available record, I am of the considered opinion that the Process Server has denied his personal acquaintance with the defendant and no-one was with him from the village who could have identified defendant Rati Ram at the time of service. The Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert examined by the defendant has also not approved the alleged signatures of Rati Ram on the summons and thus there is no error committed by the Court below in coming to the conclusion that in the absence of any material evidence on record, sufficiently showing the identification of Rati Ram at the time of service of dasti summons by the Process Server, the order proceeding against him ex parte cannot be sustained. Accordingly, no interference is warranted in this revision petition against the well reasoned order of the Court below.

Dismissed.