YERAKAREDDY ANATHAREDDI Vs. DURBA LAKSHMI BHAVANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed O. S. No. 896 of 2000 in the Court of the Principal Junior civil Judge, Vijayawada, against the respondent, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale. The respondent was set ex parte, and thereafter, an ex parte decree was passed, on 07. 06. 2001. The respondent filed i. A. No. 1670 of 2003, under Order IX Rule 13 C. P. C. , with a prayer to set aside the ex parte decree. The trial Court dismissed the I. A. , through order, dated 05. 04. 2004. The respondent filed C. M. A. No. 67 of 2004 in the Court of I additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. The appeal was allowed, on 30. 09. 2005. The order of the Appellate Court is challenged in this C. R. P.

(2.) SRI C. B. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the lower Appellate Court has gone into the validity of the order, through which substituted service was permitted, and that the same is beyond the scope of the proceedings before it. He contends that the summons in the suit were sent to the same address, as furnished in the agreement of sale, through which correspondence was undertaken, and it was only on being satisfied that the respondent avoided to receive the summons, the trial Court permitted substituted service. He submits that the decree was executed, and setting aside of the same, at this stage, will lead to several complications.

(3.) SRI O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the endorsement, on the summons sent to the respondent, was that the addressee vacated the premises and the only alternative for the trial Court was to insist upon the petitioner herein to furnish the correct address of the respondent. He contends that the circumstances, under which the substituted service was ordered, are very much germane to an application filed under Order ix Rule 13 C. P. C.