K. RAJA Vs. V. PRABHAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for appellant and also learned counsel appearing for respondent.

(2.) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed against the order passed in Misc.No.25012/2022 rejecting the petition filed under Order 9 Rule 13 r/w Sec. 151 of C.P.C with cost of Rs.1,000.00.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case before the trial Court is that when the suit is filed for relief of the judgment and decree on the ground that defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.8,80,000.00 and hence Court has issued summons against the appellant herein and the same was returned at the first instance 'unserved' and in the second instance when the notice was ordered through RPAD, it was returned with an endorsement 'defendant is not in station' and thereafter an application is filed invoking under Order V Rule 20 of C.P.C, seeking paper publication against the appellant herein and the same was allowed and he was placed ex-parte. The trial Court proceeded to record the evidence and passed the judgment and decree. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree, Misc.Petition is filed invoking Order 9 Rule 13 r/w Sec. 151 of C.P.C, wherein the ground that was urged is when the suit summons was ordered to him had been returned unserved and respondent by contending that petitioner was intentionally avoiding service of notice filed an application under Order V Rule 20 of C.P.C and taken notice through paper publication vide order dtd. 26/3/2017. Based on the same, Court proceeded to place him ex-parte. The main contention also urged before the Miscellaneous Court was that once the notice was returned with an endorsement he was not in station, at least he would have taken the notice by way of affixture and the same was not taken and proceeded to file an application under Order V Rule 20 of C.P.C. No proper service was made on the appellant and hence, called for interference of the Court.