KUNJLAL Vs. KHORBEHREEN BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 21 -9-99 passed by Civil Judge Class-I Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon in Misc. Civil Case No. 1/93 whereby the application of the respondents/defendants under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. read with Section 5 of Limitation Act to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 22-4-1992 passed in favour of the petitioner/ plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 36-A/91 was allowed.

(2.) BRIEF facts are that in Civil Suit No.36-A/91 filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff, summons were issued to the non-applicants/defendants. The summons of defendants Khorbehareen and Suman were returned by the Process Server Satanand Singh with the endorsement that on 27-1-1991 when he went to village Manditarai, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon for service of summons on Khorbehareen and Sumanlal Verma, both these defendants refused to receive the summons and a copy of the plaint whereupon he affixed a copy of the summons on the house of the defendants and made endorsement to that effect on the summons. These defendants were proceeded ex parte by the trial Court. Thereafter, a compromise was filed between the parties i.e. plaintiff-Kunjlal and defendant No.1 Lakhanlal in Civil Suit No.36-A/91. Compromise decree was passed on 22-4-92 whereby the applicants/ defendants were restrained by a permanent injunction from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit lands mentioned in schedule-A.

(3.) IN reply, the plaintiff-Kunjlal and defendant No.1 Lakhanlal alleged that summons were duly served upon the applicants/defendants Khorbehreen and Sumanlal Verma since they had refused to accept the summons whereupon the process server had affected the service of summons by affixture, as contemplated by Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C.