SARDHAR SHERIFF Vs. K. LAKSHUMANAPERUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner as well as the respondent. The application I.A.No.207 of 2007 in O.S.No.125 of 2005 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 361 days in filing a petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 20.8.2006 in O.S.No.125 of 2005, was dismissed, which necessitated the petitioner in I.A.No.207 of 2007 to prefer this revision.

(2.) THE suit O.S.No.125 of 2005 was filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein for specific performance of a contract entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant dated 20.2.2005. According to the petitioner, he came to know about the ex parte decree only through his neighbours and after that he met his counsel, who advised him to file a petition to set aside the ex parte decree and by that time there was a delay of 361 days in preferring the petition to set aside the ex parte decree.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that there was no proper service of summon on the defendant in O.S.No.125 of 2005. Along with the typed set of papers the learned counsel has produced a certified copy of the summon said to have been served on the defendant. A perusal of the endorsement in the returned summon (certified copy), will go to show that since the defendant has refused to receive the same it was served by way of affixture on the front door of the house of the defendant. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would point out that no independent witness's signature was obtained for the service of summons by way of affixture and that only the plaintiff has signed as a witness for the service by affixture and the process -server, who had served the summons was in handglove with the plaintiff in making a false endorsement as to the effect that the summons has been served by way of affixture, and that is why the process -server has not obtained the signature of a third person as a witness for the service of summons.