CHANDRALEKHA JAWAHAR KARANGIA Vs. JAHANGIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.

(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 2.11.2006 of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji. By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge has refused to set aside the order directing that the suit will proceed ex parte against the petitioner who is the defendant there. Several points have been raised on behalf of the petitioner. However, the only substantial point is whether the petitioner has changed her addressed from Andheri (E) to Chembur and whether, therefore, the declaration that she is served is proper. According to the petitioner, she has changed her addressed sometime in the year 2004 to Chembur from Andheri (E). Therefore, it was not correct on the part of the Court to proceed under Order 5, Rule 9(5) to make a declaration that the petitioner was duly served. It appears that this contention was raised before the learned Civil Judge who, however, rejected the contention, inter alia, on the ground that in the Judgment dated 17.3.06 of the Director of Settlement & Land Records, the petitioner's address was shown as Andheri (E) and that she had not taken care to have the address changed. It appears that the learned Civil Judge has fallen into error here. The appeal, in which the Judgment was delivered, appears to have been filed in the year 2001. It may, therefore, not be proper to assume that had there been a change in address, the petitioner would have moved for having the address amended in the cause title of the pending appeal. In any case, as a matter of fact, the petitioner has stated on oath that there has been change in the address in the year 2004. This fact has been denied on behalf of the respondent. However, the respondent has not made any attempt to disprove it except to produce the Judgment of the Director of Settlement & Land Records at Panaji dated 17th March, 2006 on which the Court has relied.