HARBANS SINGH Vs. BAHADUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An ex-parte decree passed on 4.10.1994 was set aside by the trial Court accepting the plea of non-service of summons in the suit on the respondent/defendant. As against which the petitioner/plaintiff has preferred the present revision.

(2.) The defendant has contended in the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC that he came to know of the ex-parte decree obtained by the plaintiff on 4.10.1994 only, when he received a notice from the Execution Court for appearance before it on 6.5.2006. It was contended that he had been in foreign country. His wife also died in the year 1986 itself. Contending that no summons in the suit was received by him as he was not in India at the time when the summons was issued and that an irreparable loss and substantial injury would be caused to him if ex-parte decree passed as against him behind his back was sustained, the above application was filed praying to set aside the ex-parte decree.

(3.) The plaintiff/revision petitioner contested the said application on the ground that the defendant was duly served with the notice in the suit.