KHACHER SINGH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE MATHURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Original Suit No. 77 of 1990 was decreed ex parts by the learned Civil Judge, Mathura on 28th January, 1992. The petitioner defendant in the said suit filed an application under Order IX. Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said application was registered as Misc. Case No. 71 of 1992. By an order dated 22nd May, 1999, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura had dismissed the said Misc. Case. Misc. Appeal No. 102 of 1999 was preferred against the same. By an order dated 9th August, 1999, the learned District Judge, Mathura had dismissed the said appeal affirming the order dated 22nd May. 1999. These orders have since been challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) Mr. Janardan Sahal, learned counsel for the petitioner had assailed the said order on the ground that both the Courts below have found that summons were never served on the petitioner defendant. But on the ground that the defendant had knowledge about the suit, the application under Order IX, Rule 13 was rejected. According to him, the Court having recorded a finding that summons were not served only on the basis of presumption. It could not have arrived at such a conclusion, which on the face of the record, are perverse and as such, the said orders should be set aside.

(3.) Mr. Ajay Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite parties contends that the Court had duly proceeded under Order V, Rule 17 of the Code, Order V, Rule 19A and thereafter had got the notice published in a daily newspaper circulated In the village and that Initially the notices were served on the brother of the defendant and subsequently the defendant did not accept the notice as such the Courts have rightly come to a conclusion that the defendant had knowledge of the proceedings. Therefore, the orders are justified.