MALUK SINGH Vs. NAND SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF (petitioner herein) filed suit for declaration against defendants, Nand Singh and Dara Singh (respondents herein). Nand Singh was away to England at the relevant time. Registered notice was set to him at the address where he was allegedly residing. Neither the registered letter nor the acknowledgement due was received back. Nand Singh, defendant, was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte. Suit was contested by the other defendant, namely, Dara Singh and ultimately, on 2.11.1985, suit was decreed ex-parte in favour of plaintiff. Appeal against the said ex-parte judgment and decree was filed by Dara Singh, which later on, was withdrawn. It is only thereafter that Nand Singh filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree. Upon contest, trial court dismissed the application, but on appeal by Nand Singh, first appellate Court accepted the appeal and set aside the ex- parte judgment and decree of the trail Court. The present revision petition is against the order of the learned Additional District Judge whereby ex-parte judgment and decree has been set aside and Nand Singh has been permitted to defend the suit.

(2.) THE only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that summons for service of Nand Singh were properly addressed and duly sent by registered post acknowledgement due and, therefore, the trial Court had not committed any illegality in proceeding ex-parte against Nand Singh. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Nand Singh has contended that the petitioner has not been able to prove that the address on which registered A.D. letter was sent, was that of Nand Singh. It is contended that the discretion exercised by the learned Additional District Judge in setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree being based on material on record should not be interfered with.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , the revision petition being without any merit shall stand dismissed.