GIRJESH Vs. SANDHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/husband has filed the present petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by order dtd. 27/9/2021 whereby the application filed by the respondent/wife under Order 09 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. has been allowed and exparte judgment and decree dtd. 14/2/2020 has been set aside.

(2.) Facts of the case in short are as under:-

(3.) Shri Tugnawat learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned court has wrongly set aside the exparte decree on the ground that no evidence has been reduced by the petitioner to establish service of notice to the respondent. In support of his contention, he relies on the judgment passed by Apex Court in case of Jagdish Singh V/s Natthu Singh reported in the year 1992 Vol.-1 SCC 647 in which it is held that the notice must be presumed to have been served as contemplated by Sec. 27 of the General Clauses Act,when the appellant therein refused to accept the notice. It is further submitted that it is not mandatory to examine the process server or a postman in case of refusal of notice. Heard.