SARDAR VALLABHBHAI PATEL SMARAK TRUST Vs. SAMARTH NANGIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide IA No. 18634/2010, the plaintiff has sought recall of the order dated 26th August, 2010, whereby this Court noting that though as per affidavit of service the defendant was stated to have been served, the ordinary process, had been received with the report defendant is out of station?, and further noting that Registered A.D. cover had not been received back, directed issue of fresh process to the defendant for 02nd November, 2010. It is alleged that on 03rd July, 2010, the defendant was personally served at his residence at A-7, NDSE, Part-II, New Delhi, on identification by Shri S.S. Mishra, representative of the plaintiff. It is further alleged in the application that Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, vide his letter dated 22nd September, 2010 sent to the counsel for the plaintiff, has confirmed that Registered Letter No. 9163 received from Delhi High Court on 06.06.2010 was delivered to the addressee on 07.06.2010. In view of personal service as well as service by registered post, the plaintiff has sought recall of the order dated 26.08.2010.

(2.) Vide IA No. 16007/2010, the plaintiff has sought pronouncement of judgment against the defendants on the ground that despite service of summons on him, he had filed failed to file written statement within the time prescribed in this regard.

(3.) Vide IA No. 16386/2010, the defendant had sought two weeks? time to file the written statement. It is alleged in this application that the defendant has never been served with any notice from the Court. It is further that nobody was residing at the address given in the notice for last 8 months and the said house was later vacated by the father of the defendant on 27.09.2010. On that day, the brother of the defendant went to the above-referred place for vacating the premises and at that time, the guard handed over to him a bulk of mails and couriers, wherein a summon of the above case was found along with a copy of the plaint. It is further alleged that on enquiry, the defendant came to know that the matter was fixed for 22.11.2010. Since he was not aware that the statement was required to be filed within prescribed time, he did not engage a counsel up to 20.11.2010 and, therefore, the written statement could not be filed within the stipulated period of 30 days which expired on 26.10.2010.