PURSHOTTAM CHOUBEY Vs. GAYATRI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order-dated 16.11.2004 passed by First ADJ, Damoh in MJC No. 26/2000, allowing respondent's application, under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC, for setting aside ex parte divorce decree passed against her on 22.10.1997 in Civil Suit No. 84-A/97. The background facts giving rise to the revision may be summarized thus-

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner, while making reference to the decision of the Apex Court in Basant Singh v. Roman Catholic Mission, 2002 7 SCC 531, has submitted that learned trial Judge did not commit any error in placing reliance on the report suggesting that defendant/respondent had refused to receive envelope containing summons for 9.8.1997.

(3.) A bare perusal of the impugned order would reveal that ex parte decree was set aside not only on the ground that summons was not duly served but also for the reason that even otherwise, the service of summons by registered post did not assume any significance as no attempt was made to effect the service thereof by general mode. The reasoning was justified in view of settled legal position that service by registered post is an additional/simultaneous mode of service and, therefore, cannot be adopted without taking recourse to ordinary mode (See. Electric Construction and Equipment Co. Ltd,(M/s) v. Permali Wallace Ltd. 1991 JabLJ 45). Further, as rightly pointed out by Learned Counsel for the respondent, the endorsement as to refusal of envelope was not signed or initialled by the postman whereas the earlier endorsement indicating that the addressee was expected to come back from Hatta after 3 days did bear his signature.