RAM YASH Vs. PUSHPA MALIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NO one appeared for the appellant on the first call. NO one has appeared for the appellant even on the second call. I have therefore heard the counsel for the respondent and am proceeding to dispose of the appeal.

(2.) CHALLENGE by means of this Appeal is to the impugned order of the Trial Court dated 17.7.2010 which dismissed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC of the appellant/defendant no.1. I may note that the defendant no.2, Sh. Kamal did not apply for setting aside of the decree for possession and in fact the appellant has for unexplained reasons not made the said defendant no.2, Sh. Kamal as party to this appeal.

(3.) CONSIDERING the aforesaid facts, the Trial Court has given the following observations, and with which I agree, for dismissing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Of course, I may note that the Trial Court has wrongly noted that the AD cards are initialed, however, even if the AD cards are not initialed, it would not make any difference because the AD cards in fact show that the summons were in fact sent to the correct address. Paras 5 to 8 of the impugned order read as under: