ABNASH SINGH Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant-appellant has filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby his petition filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was dismissed by the learned lower Court.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Canara Bank plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 5,31,381.55 with costs and interest in the trial Court on January 2, 1988. Summons were ordered to be served on the defendants. Appellant was defendant No. 3. He was served through publication. When none of the defendants appeared in the Court, the trial Court proceeded ex parte against the defendants, recorded plaintiff's evidence and passed an ex parte decree in favour of the plaintiff on June 3, 1992, decreeing the whole claim as mentioned above. Defendant No. 2 Paramjit Singh filed a petition for setting aside this ex-parte decree on August 11, 1992. On this very date, defendant-appellant also filed an application under order 9 Rule 13 CPC alleging that he was never served, he does not know Punjabi and the daily newspaper in which summons was published was in Punjabi language. Hence he never got information of the pendency of the suit. He got knowledge of this ex-parte decree on August 10, 1992. He prayed that the ex-parte decree be set-aside.

(3.) Plaintiff-respondent contested the petition and pleaded inter alia that the petition is barred by limitation. It further objected that the appellant had no locus standi to file the present petition. He was duly served in accordance with the provisions of law, he did not appear of his own accord and was accordingly proceeded ex-parte correctly. He had knowledge of the proceedings in the civil suit and did not appear intentionally.