PURNANANDA PRESS Vs. CHORUS MACHINERIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. SR Gogoi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

(2.) Money Suit No.357/2011 was instituted in the Court of the learned Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup (M) by the respondent plaintiff herein for a decree of an amount of Rs.6,03,352/-. The appellant defendant is a press namely M/s Purnananda Press and in the array of parties, they were shown to be represented by its proprietor Pradip Koch. The very array of the parties that the appellant defendant is a press and is represented by its proprietor Pradip Koch by itself an indication that appropriate notice would have to be served on Pradip Koch, unless some other material is brought on record that notice can also be served on some other person.

(3.) The learned Civil Judge by its order dated 12.03.2013 arrived at its satisfaction that the postal receipt along with the acknowledgement card regarding service of summons on the defendant had been received and that the defendant is absent without steps. The learned Court understood from the acknowledgement card that the summons had been duly served upon the defendant. As the money suit was decreed ex-parte, an application under Order-IX Rule-13 of CPC was preferred by the appellant defendant by taking the plea that appropriate notices were not served on them. The said application stood rejected by the order dated 23.06.2015.