K R PENTAIAH Vs. MANDABAD HARIJANA ABHIVRUDHI SANGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants are the petitioners in this revision petition. The revision petition is filed questioning the order of the principal District Munsif, Hyderabad East and North, R.R. District in I.A.No.499 of 1991 in O.S. No. 69 of 1990, dt. 12-12-1991. By the impugned order, the learned Judge dismissed the application filed under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte decree passed on 17-7-1990 in O.S.No. 69/1990. The relevant facts are as follows:

(2.) O.S.No,.69/1990 was filed by the respondent-plaintiff for a declaration of title to the property in question and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with its alleged possession. Summons were taken out to the defendants in the suit. The summons were served on one V. Prabhavathi on 10-2-1990. The defendants were set ex-parte on the said basis and an ex-parte decree was passed on 17-7-1990.

(3.) The defendants filed I.A.No.499/1991 under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the said ex-parte decree on the ground that they were not served with the summons of the suit. They were not aware of the suit at all and that they came to know about the decree passed in the suit only when the Police of the Tirumalaghiri Police Station stated to them that they shall not interfere with the possession of the plaintiff on 19-2-1991. Then alone, they came to know about the passing of the ex-parte decree and, immediately, they have taken steps to know the nature of the decree and the property with reference to which the suit was decreed. They filed an application for certified copies of the Judgment and decree as well as other documents by a third party affidavit on 20-24991. The certified copies were made ready on 27-2-1991 by the Court and the petitioners took delivery of the same on 28-2-1991. On perusal of the certified copies obtained by them, they came to know the fraud played on them. According to the petitioners, no summons were served on them. V. Prabhavathi on whom the summons were stated to have been served, has nothing to do with them. On these allegations, the application, I.A.No.499/1991 was filed on 25-3-1991.