MANGALBHAI PRABHATBHAI AGRWAL Vs. SUNILBHAI JAMANDAS BAJAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr. N.K.Majmudar for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Umang Chokshi for the respondent.

(2.) By way of present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges judgment and order passed in CMA No.24 of 2019 by the learned Additional Small Causes Court, Vadodara dtd. 7/7/2021 where-under the petition of the petitioner seeking condonation of delay for filing application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC has been denied.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. N.K.Majmudar for the petitioner having read the impugned order as well as application filed before the Court below would submit that service of the process of Rent Suit No.40 of 2015 was not effected upon the petitioner but the petitioner was served through his nephew which is not effective service within provision of Code of Procedure Code . He would further submit that petitioner was paralyzed and was suffering from paralysis and therefore, he could not approach the Court below for calling back ex-parte decree within time. He would further submit that though the petitioner has explained passage of delay by sufficient cause stated in the petition, learned Trial Court without paying heed and consideration to such cause on hyper-technical approach denied relief. This submission is canvassed to say that impugned order is erroneous and required to be set aside. Upon such submissions, learned advocate Mr. Majmudar would submit to allow this petition.