PIARA SINGH Vs. AMRIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner, Shri Piara Singh hasassailed the order of Additional District Judge dated 20/10/1992, pursuance to which his application filed under Order 37 Rule 3(7) of the Code ofCivil Procedure (hereinafter called the 'C.P.C.') was dismissed and the suitwas decreed against him.

(2.) The admitted facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondentherein filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 52.550.00 under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code againstthe present petitioner. Summons for appearance were issued by registeredpost as well as by ordinary process on 26/10/1990. The service byregistered cover was effected for the date of hearing dated 6/02/1991. Since the present petitioner defendant before the Trial Court did notenter appearance therefore the case was listed for further proceedings on 11thMarch/February 1991. The petitioner filed an application under Order 37Rule 3(7) C P.C. on 19/03/1991 on the ground that he was told telephonically by the decree holder that a decree against him has been passed on 11/03/1991. On receiving this information, he contacted the Counseland inspected the file and found that his signatures had been forged on theA.D. card purporting to have been received by him and that in fact he hadnever received any summons as he had paralytic attack on 6/09/1990 and was under the treatment. Along with the application he annexedcertain medical certificates also. This application was contested and thelearned A.D.J. after going through the record disbelieved the contention of thepetitioner and dismissed big application. Since he had not put in appearancewithin 10 days of the service, decree was passed against him. The groundnow taken by the petitioner is that the Trial Court ought to have taken intoconsideration that the ordinary summons had not come back and that theregistered COVER shows fabricated signatures, therefore the petitioner ought tohave been given time to prove the same. His medical certificates have alsonot been properly appreciated by the Court.

(3.) I have heard the arguments and perused the record. The perusalof the Trial Court record shows that the A.D. card bears the signatures ofone Piara Singh. The presumption under law is that registered notice sent ifnot returned back within 30 days ought to have been delivered to the addressee. Therefore in view of this provision of the Civil Procedure Code it cannot be said thatthe Trial Court wrongly came to the conclusion that the petitioner was dulyserved by registered post with summons. Moreover, the A.D. card wasreceived back with the signatures purported to have been signed by PiaraSingh. The Trial Court also rightly observed that if he was a paralyticpatient and was bed ridden how could be appear before the private doctor atAshok Vihar on 18/03/1991 ? The application before the Trial Courtunder Order 37 Rule 3(7) Civil Procedure Code was filed on 19th March, 1991 indicatingthat the petitioner was confined to bed. The medical certificate belies thisversion of the petitioner. Therefore the observation of the Trial Court cannot be said to be wrong The law permits that the service of summons shouldbe by ordinary as well as by registered post and it was not necessary for theTrial Court to wait for the service of summons by ordinary process particularly when the A.D card had been received back bearing the signatures ofthe addressee. No judgment in fact had been passed on 11/03/1993the Presiding Officer was on half day leave and the case was adjourned.Therefore it cannot be imagined that the decree holder will inform the judgment debtor without the passing of the decree that a decree had been passedagainst him. This version of the petitioner rightly did not find favour withthe Trial Court and I see no-reason to interfere with the impugned orderbecause I find no infirmity in the same. Dismissed.