RAMPRASAD SAHU Vs. GAJENDRA SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER dated 29.2.2012 passed by Additional District Judge, Begumganj in Civil Suit No. 48/2009 is being challenged vide this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Vide said order application preferred by the petitioner under ORDER 9 Rule 7 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been rejected. Suit at the instance of respondent/plaintiff is for possession or in the alternative for a claim of Rs.1,12,000/ with 2 % interest. In the suit the petitioner who is defendant was proceeded ex parte on 19.9.2009 as the petitioner had declined to accept the notice issued by the Court.

(2.) VIDE application under Order 9 Rue 7 CPC it was alleged by the petitioner that he was wrongly proceeded ex parte as the notices issued were not received by him and that there was no order by the Court for service of notice by registered acknowledgment due post. Respondent/plaintiff examined the postman of the postal department who went to serve the notice on petitioner/defendant which was refused by petitioner. In categorical term it was stated that the petitioner/defendant had refused to accept the notice. Trial Court taking cognizance of the aforesaid facts on record rejected the application under Order 9 Rule 7 and declined to set aside the order dated 16.9.2009 as the petitioner/defendant has failed to give a cogent reason for his non appearance on the said date. Trial Court held: ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]...

(3.) IN the case at hand as apparent from the finding recorded by the Trial Court which is based on the evidence of postman of postal department that the petitioner had refused to accept the notice, refusal of acceptance would constitute a good cause for petitioner's non appearance.