HANS RAJ Vs. LAKHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 18.10.1996 whereby learned Additional District Judge rejected the petitioner's application under OR.37R.4 CPC seeking reversal of the ex parte judgment and decree dated 16.11.1995.

(2.) On 31.1.1996, the petitioner/defendant filed an application un der O. 37 Rule 4 CPC for setting aside the exparte decree dated 16.11.1995. It was alleged in the application that petitioner/defendant was never served with the summons nor he refused to accept the summons. It was further alleged in the application that the defendant has to visit his native place at Pathankot (Punjab) where his old mother resides as the defendant has to look after her. It was also stated in the application that alleged loan agreement is a fabricated document. No such alleged loan transaction ever took place. This application was opposed by the plaintiff/ respondent and after considering the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Additional District Judge rejected the application vide order dated 18.10.1996. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner/defendant has preferred this revision.

(3.) In rejecting the application, learned Additional District Judge was influenced by the fact that in the application petitioner had nowhere alleged that the information regarding the Court summons was not passed on to him by his wife. Moreover, petitioner had not disclosed the name of the person who had told him about the ex parte decree having been passed against him under O. 37 CPC on 16.11.1995. Notice was sent by registered AD at the correct address and therefore there is presumption of service. Learned Additional District Judge concluded that defendant/petitioner failed to make out any special circumstance entitling him to relief under the provisions of O. 37 Rule 4 CPC. O. 37 Rule 4 reads as under:- "ORDER XXXVII SUMMARY PROCEDURE