RAJEEV AGRAWAL Vs. BANGALI MAI AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of the Court below by which application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC has been allowed against which appeal was filed. The appeal has also been rejected. The claim of the petitioner is that a suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed being Suit No. 40 of 2006. It is claimed that the Process Server has served notice upon the respondents. However, when they did not contest the matter, the suit was decreed ex parte vide order dated 16.2.2008. It is also claimed that after a year an application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC was filed for recalling the ex parte decree. The Court below issued notice on the aforesaid application and invited objection. The petitioner filed objection before the Court below. However, the application filed by the defendants was allowed holding therein that the notice has not properly been served against which revision was filed. The revisional Court has also upheld the order of the Court below and dismissed the revision vide order dated 14.7.2011 which has resulted in filing of the present writ petition.

(2.) I have considered the submissions made by Sri Ranjit Saxena, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

(3.) The Court below has recorded a categorical finding that the summons were not duly served upon the defendants and by imposing cost, has allowed the application.