RISAL SINGH Vs. INDRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application to set aside the ex parte decision arrived at by me in R. S. A. 155-D/65. The respondent was unrepresented at the time of the hearing of the appeal on 11th October, 1971. I noted even in the judgment at that time, that defendant has not been served in spite of many efforts by the postal authorities.

(2.) The respondent applied for setting aside the ex parte decision of the appeal and for a rehearing of the same by an application, C.M.I 102/ 72. Although the application has been moved very late, it slates that the respondent only heard about the ex parte proceedings on 29th July, 1972 when the successful appellants sought to execute the decree. It is contended by the successful appellants in their reply, that the respondents were aware of the proceedings in October, 1971. No date or time has been mentioned in the reply nor is the manner or method of conveying the decision of this court to the respondent mentioned in the affidavit. I consider the reply to be too vague and accept the respondent's pleading and affidavit that he came to hear of the decision of the appeal on 29th July, 1972. Consequently, the application is within time.

(3.) The only ground urged in support of the application under Order 41 Rule 21, is that the respondent was not represented in these proceedings by an Advocate and therefore an actual date notice had to be served on him. In fact, an actual date notice was sent to the respondent but was returned to the court on the ground that the respondent could not be found, or to use the exact language on the registered cover: "Going again and again but not met". After this report the registered letter was returned to the court with the remark "addressee was not available". In fact the addressee was not available because the postman did not meet him.