SHAILENDRA KUMAR Vs. DAMODER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made by Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra dated 3.8.87 whereby he has recommended that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer Mat, district Mathura dated 6.2.87 rejecting the application for restoration of the defendant-revisionist be set aside and the case be restored by setting aside the ex-parte decree passed on 7.9.82.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that a suit under Sec. 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of the 1951 was bought by Brajbhan Singh father of opposite parties No. 1 to 4 which was decreed ex-parte on 7.9.82. On 12.10.84 an application for restoration under order 9 rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code was moved by the revisionist Shailendra Kumar and Shish Kumar on the ground that their father Baj Kumar who was the original defendant had no information of the suit and that no notice had been served personally upon him and that they too had no knowledge about the suit or decree earlier hence on learning about the same they applied for restoration along with application under Sec. 5 Limitation Act for condonation of delay.

(3.) The trial court held that notices had been sent by registered post to the defendant Raj Kumar and it had been returned with the endorsement of refusal by the addressee hence service was sufficient and accordingly the application for restoration was rejected.