CHAUTHI RAM Vs. BALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE suit was decreed ex parte in the year 1991. THE defendant came to know about the ex parte decree in the year 1996 and, accordingly moved an application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the C.P.C., for setting aside the ex parte decree. Objections were filed by the plaintiff and the application was rejected by the trial court, against which, a Misc. Appeal was filed, which was also rejected. THE defendant, being aggrieved by the rejection of his application, has preferred the present writ petition.

(3.) I have perused the record and, in my opinion, there cannot be any deemed presumption on service on the sole ground that the other defendants are brothers of the petitioner who had appeared in the suit. There is no finding that all the brothers are living together or residing under one roof. Consequently, the presumption of service, which is clearly rebuttal, cannot be allowed to stand especially when the petitioner has come out with a clear case that no service was made.