OM PRAKASH Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of the present writ petition, the petitioner who was defendant in O.S. No.239 of 1996 has sought the quashing of the orders passed by the trial Court and the Appellate Court rejecting the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.

(2.) THE aforestated suit was instituted by the respondents herein for possession on the allegation that the defendant was licensee whose licence has been terminated by means of a registered notice. The suit was decreed exparte on 2nd of January, 1998. The decree was put to execution. Thereafter, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the exparte decree was filed mainly on the allegation that the defendant was not served with the notice and summon of the suit. The said contention has not been accepted by the two Courts below, hence the present writ petition.

(3.) THE only question involved in the present writ petition is whether the Courts below were justified in rejecting the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. It may be noted that before instituting the suit, a notice determining the licence was given by registered post. Said notice was returned with endorsement of refusal and it is exhibit-1 on the file of the suit. Its receipt is also on the record as Exhibit 1/2. It has been further found that the notice of the suit was served by ordinary course which was returned by the process server with endorsement of refusal. It was not found sufficient and the Court ordered that steps be taken to serve the defendant by registered post. Steps were taken by the plaintiff and notice was issued by registered post which was returned with the endorsement of refusal.