SANDEEP BATRA Vs. G E CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 30th March, 2006 passed by learned trial court whereby an application of the petitioner under Order 37 Rule 4 CPC for setting aside an ex parte decree dated 18th August 2004 was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the respondent filed a suit under Order 37 of Civil Procedure Code against the petitioner herein and a notice of the suit under Order 37 CPC was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner put appearance in the Court and gave an address of service for effecting services of summons of the judgment. Thereafter, the respondent was to take steps for service of judgment of the petitioner. On one or two occasions, the respondent failed to take steps for service of summons of judgment and the suit was dismissed in default. On an application made by the respondent for restoration of the suit, the Court restored the suit and ordered for service of summons of judgment on the petitioner. The summons of judgment were sent to the petitioner through registered post as well as through ordinary post on the address furnished by petitioner. The ordinary process came back with the report that the residence was locked and the petitioner had shifted from the address. However, registered letter was served upon the mother of the petitioner on the same address. No leave to defend application was moved by the petitioner. Trial court considered the case of respondent in light of documents and pleadings of the respondent and passed a decree in favour of the respondent on merits vide order dated 18th August, 2004. After the suit was decreed, the petitioner preferred an application for setting aside the decree. This application of the petitioner was dismissed vide the impugned order.

(3.) It was submitted by petitioner before trial Court that summons of the judgment were not properly served on the petitioner/ defendant and no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff (respondent herein) if the decree was set aside. The trial court found that the petitioner had not disclosed any special circumstances as envisaged under Section 37 (4) of CPC for setting aside the decree nor the petitioner had raised any defence even in the application under Section 37(4) and dismissed the application.