DOSS Vs. VAMANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petitioners/applicants/judgment debtors have filed E. A. No. 123 of 2003 under Or. 21, R. 106 of C. P. C. in E. P. No. 20 of 2003 in O. S. No. 2077/97 on the file of District Munsif Court, Alandur, praying to set aside the exparte order dated 11. 09. 2003. The civil revision petitioners take a plea before this Court that E. P. No. 20 of 2003 was posted on 11. 09. 2003 for their appearance and because of the non receipt of any notice/letters, they were not aware of the existence of the aforesaid case and the revision petitioners came to know about the exparte decree passed in O. s. No. 2077 of 200. Only when the Bailiff came to their premises for executing the warrant of eviction and that the first civil revision petitioner is working in a private apartment as Watchman and his wife, being the second civil revision petitioner is working as a maid servant and they used to go to their job early in the morning and return late in the evening and therefore, they were not served with any notice/summons and that at any point of time they are not refused the processes of the Court.

(2.) THE respondents/decree holders/plaintiffs have filed their counter to the E. A. No. 123 of 2003 stating that the civil revision petitioners/j. Ds allowed the entire proceedings to proceed exparte and they showed resistance only at the time of delivery by the Court Amin and that the civil revision petitioners/j. Ds. have filed the E. A. No. 123 of 2003 to drag on the proceedings with a view to harass the respondents/decree holders and that the application is without any merits.

(3.) THE learned District Munsif, Alandur has passed orders in E. A. No. 123 of 2003 on 04. 12. 2003 inter alia observing that 'as evident from the record since the Judgment Debtors have refused to receive the notice through private service they were called absent and set exparte on 11. 09. 2003 and delivery also ordered on the same day to be effected by 22. 10. 2003. As evident from the averments stated in the affidavit, the petitioners/j. Ds. have stated that the E. P. was posted on 11. 9. 2003 for their appearance and that they have not received any notice in this regard. The contention of the petitioners/j. Ds. cannot be accepted for the reason because as evident from the records they have refused to receive the notice sent through private service they have been set exparte by this Court on 11. 9. 2003. In view of the above the petitioners/j. Ds. have not shown sufficient cause for their non appearance on 11. 9. 2003. Hence, the contention of the petitioners/j. Ds. that they were not served any notice and that they have not refused any process at any point of time cannot be accepted and dismissed the application without costs.