TARLOCHAN SINGH Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision has been filed against the order dated 15.2.2006 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nabha, vide which the application moved by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the CPC has been rejected.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that there was no personal service of the petitioner and that the publication was done in the Tribune, the paper which he does not read. Thereafter he came to know about the ex parte order dated 28.4.2001 on 28.2.2006 when the property mortgaged with the bank was sought to be sold. The learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner by observing that the case was seven years old and was pending since 1997. It recorded a finding that the defendant was evading service through ordinary process and accordingly he was ordered to be summoned through publication in the English Tribune which was an authorised newspaper in which the publication was made. It also took notice of the fact that the brother of the petitioner delivered the possession of the mortgaged plot to the authority and he signed on the notice about one year back and, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he came to know about this case only on 28.2.2006 was not believed. The learned trial Court further held that the petitioner was rightly served.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further submits that even the Munadi was not done. It is appropriate to note down the order passed by the trial Court on 2.2.1999 which reads as under :-