VEDANTHA GOUNDER Vs. DHANAPAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It appears from the records that the first hearing of the suit O.S. No. 372 of 1972 was to be on 24th April 1972. The suit was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4800 as mesne profits for the period 1969 -70 and 1970 -71. But, the summons were not personally served on the respondents; but were affixed to the outer door of the dwelling, since they were absent at that place of residence. Fresh summons were thereupon ordered for the bearing on 12th June 1972. The evidence of the process server R.W.2 who claimed to have served the suit summons on the respondents for that hearing has been accepted by the learned District Munsif, and there is the endorsement of the process server R.W.2 which supports his testimony that the suit summons were served on the respondents personally and their signatures were obtained in Ex. C.1. But, it is found that as required by O.5 R.2 C.P.C., the suit summons were not accompanied by a copy of the plaint or by a concise statement of the claim, for, the three copies of the plaint filed by the plaintiff were still found intact in the bundle and the entry in the register Ex. A -1 did not disclose that copies of the plaint were served on the respondents. Therefore, the learned District Munsif while finding that the summon were served on the respondents, held that copies of the plaint were not served on them as required by O.5 R.2, C.P.C., and on that ground, the he set aside the ex parte decree passed against the respondents after referring to two decisions of this Court in S. Ameeran Sahib v/s. Somanatha Nadar, : A.I.R. 1973 Mad. 308 and Pichaiammai v/s. Vellayya, : A.I.R. 1963 Mad. 198.