MEDIA COVERAGE PVT LTD Vs. HARISH NAGEWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order I shall dispose of applications under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC made by the applicants/defendants for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 19th March, 2001 passed by the Court in a suit under Order 37 CPC.

(2.) The brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this application are that the plaintiff filed a suit under Order 37 CPC for recovery of Rs. 1,11,75,243.40 along with interest @ 24%. The summons of the suit were sent to the defendants through ordinary post. Perusal of order-sheet dated 19.9.2000 would show that the service report was not on record although plaintiff had contended that the defendants had refused to receive the summons. The case was next taken up on 17.10.2000 when the plaintiff contended that summons were also sent by registered post and they were duly served. Again the postal receipts were not filed and the Counsel sought some time to trace the same and place on record. The matter was again listed on 8.11.2000. On 8.11.2000, the Court perused the process server report and also saw the postal receipts placed on record and came the conclusion that defendants were deliberately evading service thus gave directions for publication of notice in newspaper Statesman in the prescribed format under Order 37 CPC. The notice was published in newspaper dated 20.12.2001 and after publication of notice when none appeared for the defendants, the Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 1,11,75,423.40 with 15% interest on the ground of not entering appearance. Thereafter an Execution was filed in the Court and notice of Execution was sent to the defendants through courier. The defendants received this notice and then moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Defendant No. 2 moved a separate application. Defendants No. 1, 3 & 4 moved a separate application but the contents of both the applications are more or less the same.

(3.) The contention of defendants is that the reports of the process server, who allegedly had taken the service to the defendants places were manipulated. The process server had not given the name of the plaintiffs agent who accompanied him and the report stated in respect of Ajay Nagewala stated that on the identification of representative of plaintiff, he (process server) enquired about Ajay Nagewala and father of Ajay Nagewala was found present at the place. He tried to give summons to him but he after reading the same refused to receive the summons. Since there was no witness on the spot, the summons could not be affixed on spot. After getting the signature of the representative of the firm, he submitted the report. A report in respect of Harish Nagewala was similar except that he had met brother of Harish Nagewala on identification of representative of plaintiff firm at the address of Harish Nagewala. It is submitted by defendant that Harish had no brother. In respect of Mohan Nagewala it is stated that Mohan Nagewala himself met him but he refused to receive summons.