NANDA DAYARAM JAT Vs. RAJA RAM RAMAJI JAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by the plaintiff who had sued the defendant in Civil suit No. 451 of 1960. The defendant was served for appearance on 14-1-1961. That date was declared a holiday. The next date of hearing was 20-2-1961. The court on that day thought that the previous service would not be sufficient and therefore issued a summons which was affixed on the residence of the defendant. In spite of this the defendant did not appear and the Court holding the substituted service to be good passed an ex parte decree against the defendant. After obtaining the decree, the decree-holder started execution proceedings and Nazir went to the residence of the defendant for attachment. Thfs happened on. 12-81961. The defendant thereupon made an application on 23-8-1961 for setting aside the ex parte decree.

(2.) THE small cause court found that the defendant was not duly served and that he came to know of the decree only when Nazir went there for attachment on 12-81961. The claim was therefore within time. The plaintiff has now come up in revision against the order setting aside the ex parte decree.

(3.) THE court found that the substituted service that was effected on the defendant was not properly done. This position has not been challenged. Therefore I need not discuss the question whether a valid substituted service is a good service within the meaning of Article 164 of the Limitation. Act when as a matter of fact the service has been found to have been effected illegally.