RAGHUNATH Vs. BHAI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 24.02.2011, by which the prayer of the petitioner for the cross-examination of the respondents has been rejected. The petitioner filed suit for recovery on 08.06.2007. The suit has been decreed exparte on 06.1.2007. The respondents filed recalling application on 19.02.2010. One of the ground in the application was that the summons have not been served upon them, apart from the other grounds. The petitioner moved an application for the cross-examination of the respondents in respect of the certain averments made in the application, which has been rejected on the ground that the question is whether the summons have been properly served upon them or not and an enquiry is being made from the Postal Department and the court below held that the cross-examination in respect of the other averments is not necessary. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cross-examination of the respondents are necessary to test? the correctness of the averments made in the application.? He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. The Workmen and others, reported in AIR 1972 SC, 330 and the decision of this Court in the case of Ashfaq Ahmad vs. Prescribed Authority (Civil Judge), Rampur and another, reported in 1987 A.L.J., 1452.

(2.) I do not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner. The? main question for consideration is whether the notice/summons have been properly served upon the defendants/respondents and for this the trial court has observed that the enquiry is being made from the Postal Department.