CHITREKHA Vs. ROOP NARAYAN VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

(2.) Shri P.P. Sahu, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit: the order impugned has been passed by the Trial Court without assigning any reason therefor; the process server examined by the petitioner in the case has specifically stated that the summons were refused by the respondent No. 1 and, therefore, the ground taken in the application that the summons were not duly served upon him is false on the face of record and accordingly the Trial Court has exceeded in exercising its jurisdiction in setting aside the ex parte decree.

(3.) On the other hand, Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 relying upon the provision contained in Order 5 Rule 2 of the CPC would submit: summons alleged to be sent to respondent No. 1 was not accompanied with the copy of plaint which is mandatory requirement. In the absence of above, the alleged service of summons was bad and in the Trial Court has not committed any jurisdictional error in setting aside the ex parte decree.