PIARE LAL Vs. MODERN AUTOMOBILES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Piare Lal, petitioner had brought a suit for possession by way of ejectment of M/s Modern Automobiles, Karnal from a premises claimed to be owned by him and occupied by M/s Modern Automobiles and another as tenants. In the said suit, M/s Modern Automobiles and other defendants had been proceeded against ex-parte on 5.8.2009. After taking the evidence of the plaintiff, an ex-parte decree was passed on 12.1.2010.

(2.) M/s Modern Automobiles filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 12.1.2010 on the ground that the applicants were not served with a notice of the suit properly and that decree passed ex-parte against them on 12.1.2010 is liable to be set aside. They have claimed that they came to know of the ex-parte decree passed against them only on 4.2.2010 when an employee with them received notice of the execution application along with notice of ex-parte order dated 12.1.2010 and on receipt of the said notice, they have filed the application in hand on 11.2.2010.

(3.) The application has been opposed by Piare Lal, petitioner claiming the same to be abuse of process of the court. Plea of estoppel was also taken. It is claimed on merits that notices were duly served. According to him, Gurcharan Singh, process server (RW-3) from Chandigarh went to the residence of the defendants, where he was told that the defendant was at plot No. 4, MW, Industrial Area, Chandigarh, where M/s Modern Automobiles Workshop is situated. It is claimed that the process server was left with no alternative but to make a report of refusal on 26.3.2009. According to him, the defendants were then served by way of publication in The Tribune dated 31.7.2009 and inspite of the same, the defendants did not put in appearance in the suit. Asserting that there is no ground for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree, the application is prayed to be dismissed.