MANJARI Vs. RANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a judgment and decree dated 15.2.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in a suit under Order 37 of the C.P.C. for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,72,000/- and an order dated 18.7.2006 passed under Order 37 Rule 4 of the C.P.C. declining to set aside the said decree.

(2.) The plaintiff respondent claimed a decree for a sum of Rs.6,72,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. in a suit under Order 37 of the C.P.C. filed against the defendant-appellant. The defendant, it appears, was served by publication of a notice in "Statesman" in its issue dated 22.12.2005. Since the defendant did not enter appearance within the stipulated period of 10 days as required under Order 37 Rule 2(3) of the C.P.C, the Trial Court proceeded to decree the suit in terms of judgment and decree dated 15.2.2006 treating the averments made in the plaint to be admitted. The defendant, thereafter, made an application under Rule 4 of Order 37 of the C.P.C. for setting aside the aforementioned judgment and decree on the ground that service of summons upon him was not in accordance with law. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Hans Raj v. Lakhi Ram, 2005 AIR(Del) 87 , it was contended by the defendant before the Trial Court that service by publication was not complete in a suit under Order 37 unless a copy of the plaint was also published along with the summons. That contention found favor with the Trial Court, who recorded a clear finding to the effect that service of summons upon the defendant-appellant was not in accordance with law. Having said so, the Trial Court proceeded to hold that the decree passed by it could not be set aside as the defendant-appellant had not raised any triable issue upon which he could claim the leave to defend the suit. The defendants' application under Order 37 Rule 4 was on that finding dismissed by the Court below by its order dated 18.7.2006. The appellant has, as noticed earlier, appealed to this Court against the aforementioned two judgments and orders.

(3.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length and perused the orders under challenge