MADHU GOEL Vs. PANKAJ MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present civil revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is raised to the impugned order dtd. 24/12/2020 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad. Vide the said order, the application for setting aside the ex parte order dtd. 16/8/2018 has been dismissed. However, the petitioner-defendant No.1 has been allowed to join the proceedings of the case from the stage she appeared for the first time before the trial Court.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued from the zimni orders that initially a report had been received that the petitioner had left the house and settled elsewhere and thus, fresh notice was issued on 27/7/2018 to her for 16/8/2018. On that date, the trial Court had noticed that the report was of incorrect address. However, notice sent through the registered post has been received back with the report delivered on 23/7/2018. Counsel for the plaintiff had also placed on record track/consignment/postal receipt, therefore, on this report, petitioner had been proceeded ex parte. Counsel has further submitted that once the address was incorrect, the delivery of summons by way of registered post, was wrongly accepted by the trial Court.

(3.) The trial Court while dismissing the application, noted that the application which had been filed for setting aside the ex parte order, was supported by affidavit of petitioner, showing the same address namely house No.35-36, Sector-9, Faridabad and therefore, the contention that they had shifted, was not accepted. Rather, it was held that it is proved that she had received summons on the address given and thus, no ground was made out to set aside the ex parte proceedings.