BEEFATHUMMA Vs. LAKSHMANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against a composite order by which the court below dismissed applications to set aside an ex parte decree and to condone delay in seeking to set aside the ex parte decree.

(2.) PLAINTIFF instituted the suit on 24.6.2009 for specific performance of a contract for sale dated 16.2.2009. Major chunk of the allegedly agreed consideration for sale is stated to have been paid while the agreement is entered into. Summons issued by the court was returned by the Process Server with the endorsement of the Central Nazir that it could not be served as the defendant was not at home and her husband refused to accept it. We have gone through the endorsement of the Process Server. We may note that the Nazir's report was not in conformity with the Process Server's report which, in Malayalam, stated that the process notice was actually served on the husband of the defendant. Be that as it may, the trial court did not act on that but ordered substituted service by registered post. That was issued and the postal article addressed to the defendant was returned with the endorsement "unclaimed". Acting on that endorsement, the court below has minuted on 24.10.2009 declaring that substituted service has been duly effected. Evidently, it is a case where service of summons was effected to the satisfaction of the court below. On 24.10.2009, the defendant was set ex parte and on 17.11.2009, the ex parte decree was passed.

(3.) WE have gone through the impugned order reflecting the consideration of the relevant materials by the court below. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned senior counsel for the respondent.