ROOPRANI Vs. PREM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF/respondent No. 1 instituted a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against the defendants/petitioners and respondent No. 2 in the Court of Second Civil Judge Class-II, Khurai. Summons were issued to defendants/petitioners in ordinary manner for giving appearance on 20-6-2006. The process server put a remark that defendants/petitioners refused to accept the summons. On this basis, ex parte proceedings were drawn against the defendants/petitioners on 20-6-2006. Thereafter, the learned trial Judge on 23-6-2006 allowed the application for temporary injunction under Or. 39, R 1,2 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 in ex parte manner, restraining thereby the petitioners from causing interference in the suit property till decision of the suit.

(2.) DEFENDANTS/petitioners on coming to know about ex parte temporary injunction order on 10-7-2006 submitted an application under Order 9, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure duly supported by affidavits of both of them. It was expressly and specifically contended in the application as well as affidavits that summons were not tendered to them and they did not refuse to accept the summons. Application was duly replied by the plaintiffs and the allegations contained therein were refuted.

(3.) LEARNED trial Judge vide his order dated 2-11-2006 dismissed the application under Order 9, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that summons were tendered to the defendants/petitioners by the process server and the same were refused on being tendered as revealed in the remark of the process server.