SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Vs. KAILASH CHANDRA SINGHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision is directed against an order dated 6.10.2018 passed by the Court of Small Causes in Misc. Case No.359 of 2017 rejecting the application filed by the revisionist under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, wherein the prayer made was for setting aside the exparte decree dated 31.8.2017 in SCC Suit No.2 of 2017. The trial court has recorded a specific finding that summons in the suit were personally served upon the revisionist-tenant but he did not appear to contest the proceedings. He had also failed to offer any valid explanation for his non-appearance.

(2.) Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist had specifically denied his signatures over the summons but the court below failed to record any specific finding in that regard.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the the plaintiff-respondent submitted that there was no specific denial regarding service of summon upon defendant-tenant in application filed by him under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. It is submitted that the finding recorded by the court below is finding of fact and does not require any interference in exercise of revisional power.