SUBEDAR AMAR SINGH Vs. AVTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code') challenges order dated 17th February, 2003 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kharar setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 13th January, 1999 passed in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. The Civil Judge issued notice of the application which was contested and then framed five issues. After conclusion of the evidence, she recorded the findings on various issues. The findings on issue No. 1 which is the most important issue read as under :-

(2.) Shri Munishwar Puri, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has vehemently argued that the address given by Avtar Singh defendant-respodnent No. l in the litigation pending between him and Surjit Singh was furnished on the summons sent to Surjit Singh defendant-respondent No. 2. Therefore, Surjit Singh himself cannot plead that the address given on the Regd. A.D. cover as well as on summons was not complete or correct address. According to the learned counsel village Haibowal Kalan is not a big village which may warrant mentioning of a specific house number. He has further submitted that the Civil Judge instead of setting aside the exparte judgment and decree should have dismissed the application as infructuous because Avtar Singh defendant-respondent No. 1 has already executed the sale deed in respect of the land in favour of nominees of the plaintiff-petitioner and that mutation has also been sanctioned in their favour.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner, I am of the considered view that this petition is devoid of merit because while passing the judgment and decree, the mandatory provisions of Rule 20 of Order V of the Code have been completely ignored which read as under:-