K SUREKHA REDDY Vs. V CHANDRAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent filed O.S. No.656 of 2002 against the appellant in the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale. THE suit was decreed ex parte, on 17.2.2003. THEreafter, the respondent filed E.P., for execution of the decree. At that stage, the appellant came to know about the ex parte decree and filed IA No.1944 of 2008, under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. She pleaded that she was not served with the summons in the suit, nor did she engage an advocate, and that the ex parte decree was obtained by the respondent by playing fraud. It was urged that she came to know about the ex parte decree only on 20.9.2008, and her enquiries revealed that the trial Court proceeded as though vakalat was filed on her behalf. THE application was resisted by the respondent. THE trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order dated 23.6.2009. THE same is challenged in this appeal.

(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondent.

(3.) IN the first category of cases, the limitation for filing application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C., starts from the date of ex parte decree. The reason is that, once the defendant is served with summons, or has entered appearance, he is supposed to be in the knowledge of the development, that takes place in the suit. IN the second category of cases, the Court cannot impute knowledge to him, as regards any step, including the passing of ex parte decree. If it is established that a defendant was not served with summons at all, before the ex parte decree was passed, the limitation starts from the date of knowledge of the ex parte decree, and not from the date of the decree.