BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER Vs. RAJENDRA STORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 10.05.2019 Heard Mr. B. C. Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant. I have also heard Mr. R. K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. Mr. A. Chakraborty, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam, appears for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

(2.) Considering the nature of order that is sought to be passed by this Court, I am of the opinion that keeping the appeal pending only for service of notice upon the respondent No.4 will be unnecessary.

(3.) The respondent herein had earlier instituted Money Suit No./2010 against the appellant as the principal defendant, besides the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 as co-defendants seeking a money decree. The suit was decreed exparte on 27.11.2010. Since no appeal was preferred against the money decree passed in connection with Money Suit No.9/2010, the respondent No.1 had put the decree to execution. It was upon receipt of notice in connection with the execution case that the appellant/ defendant No.1 had approached the learned trial court with a prayer under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the exparte decree and decide the Money Suit on merit after giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant. By the order dated 13.11.2017 the learned court below has rejected the prayer made by the appellant. Hence this appeal.