Hemant Gupta, J.
1. The tenant is in revision petition aggrieved against the order passed by the learned trial Court on 12.11.2005, whereby application to seek setting aside of exparte ejectment order was dismissed.
2. An exparte ejectment order was passed on 26.2.1997. The application for setting aside exparte ejectment order was made on 15.3.1997 on the ground that the petitioner was not served as no process server ever came to effect the service and the landlord got wrong report resulting into exparte ejectment order. During the pendency of the said application, the petitioner sought amendment of an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 16.5.1999. The said application was declined by the learned Rent Controller. The revision against the said order was also dismissed by this Court on 3.5.2005.
3. The learned trial Court has found that the plea on the basis of which the petitioner has sought setting aside of exparte ejectment order is factually incorrect. It has been found that not only the petitioner was properly served but he has even filed written statement and subsequently abstained, which led to the passing of the ejectment order. Once, the ground on which the petitioner has sought setting aside of exparte proceedings is not only found to be incorrect but also totally false, the' finding recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be suffering from any patent illegality or irregularity warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the learned Rent Controller has not taken into consideration the judgment Exhibit A1, AX and AY, inter-parties. The said judgments were relied upon to show that the ejectment sought by the landlord on identical grounds has remained unsuccessful. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Commissioner of Income Tax v. Surindra Singh Pahwa and Ors. 1995(1) Civil Court Cases 682, The Punjab National Bank v. Sita Ram and Ors. (1991-1)99 P.L.R. 12, G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada and Ors. 2000(1) R.C.R. 238, and Esquire Property Dealers and Anr. v. Ved Parkash Sardana and Ors. (2002-3)132 P.L.R. 236, to contend that the Courts are not to adopt hyper-technical approach while setting aside exparte order. It is argued that since the petitioner has approached the Court immediately within the statutory time specified, therefore, the discretion should have been exercised in favour of the petitioner.
5. However, I am unable to accept the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The judgments inter-parties are in respect of the controversy on merits. Such judgments are not relevant to determine the plea of the petitioner whether he was properly served or there exists sufficient cause for setting aside the exparte proceedings. Therefore, such judgments cannot be considered, while considering the question of sufficiency of grounds of passing of an exparte order against the petitioner.
6. So far as the judgments to the effect that the Courts are not to adopt hyper-technical approach in such matters, suffice it to say that there cannot be any dispute about the proposition so laid. However, in the facts of the case, it is not the hyper-technical approach of the Court but the conduct of the petitioner which is relevant. The petitioner has sought setting aside of exparte ejectment order on a specific ground. Such ground has been found to be totally incorrect. The petitioner, in fact, put in appearance and was proceeded exparte but the proceedings were sought to be set aside on the ground that he was never served. Such false plea could not merit any consideration by the Court. The application for setting aside of the exparte ejectment order has been filed within one month. If the petitioner could come out with a false plea within a short period of passing of an ejectment order, such conduct does not merit any indulgence from this Court even on equity.
7. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition. Hence, the same is dismissed.