UNION OF INDIA Vs. MAK EXPORTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions are being disposed of by this common order, inasmuch as, one CM(M) No.229/2013 impugns the order of the trial court dated 29.8.2012 allowing the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC but subject to the deposit of the decretal amount and the second CM(M) No.603/2013 impugns the order dated 21.3.2013 by which the judgment and decree dated 28.1.2003 has been held to be executable for non -compliance of the direction of deposit made while allowing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 vide order dated 29.8.2012.

(2.) A reading of the impugned order dated 29.8.2012 shows that it is a detailed order of 10 pages which has been passed after evidence has been led by both the parties on the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.The petitioner/defendant as per the record of the trial court was duly served both through the process server (who is the court official) and by registered AD post. The impugned order discusses in detail as to how the relevant person who was on the seat to receive the dak has not been produced in evidence and as per pleading whose signatures qua the receipt of the summons by ordinary process were denied. The impugned order also discusses the fact that the concerned official whose signatures appeared on the AD card has also not been brought in the witness box by the petitioner. The impugned order dated 29.8.2012 is a detailed order discussing all aspects and some of the relevant observations showing due service of the petitioner/defendant are contained in paras 6 and 8 of the impugned order, which read as under: -

(3.) THE aforesaid observations and conclusions do not call for any interference by this Court in the facts of the present case, and the only issue which is urged before me is whether the petitioner/defendant could be called upon to deposit the entire decretal amount. In support of the arguments that the entire decretal amount could not be called upon to be deposited, counsel for the petitioner/defendant relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Tea Auction Ltd. Vs. Grace Hill Tea Industry & Anr, : (2006) 12 SCC 104. The paras of this judgment which are relied upon are paras 16, 24 & 25, and which read as under: -