BUTA SINGH Vs. IQBAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-defendant is aggrieved of the dismissal of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and as well as the appeal.

(2.) Mr. Arihant Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant submits that the suit for seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell was filed on 23.02.2005. Notice for the first date was for 04.03.2005.

(3.) The alleged service was effected upon Darshan Singh-brother, who is not the family member. The Court below did not find the service satisfactorily and ordered for Munadi for 22.03.2005 and accordingly, the petitionerdefendant was proceeded ex parte which is resulted into ex parte judgment dated 22.02.2007. The petitioner-defendant acquired the knowledge of ex For Subsequent orders see CM-10779-CII-2017 parte judgment and decree through his brother i.e. in the execution proceeding and accordingly, filed the application on 26.07.2007, whereas the judgment and decree is dated 22.02.2007. The respondent-plaintiff have failed to place on record the evidence with regard the deposit of the Munadi charges, much less, person who had effected the Munadi nor the Village Chowkidar in whose presence the Munadi was effected, thus, there is no compliance of the provisions of Order 5 Rule 20 CPC, thus, urges this Court for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree subject to the terms and conditions which this Court may impose.