SAKATAR SINGH Vs. MANJIT SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the order dated 27.10.2014 whereby evidence of the petitioner, who has filed an application for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree has been ordered to be closed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed an application for summoning Manish Chander, Process Server who purportedly made a report on the summons sent for service of the petitioner in the main case filed by respondent Manjit Singh for specific performance of an agreement to sell. On the summons sent for service of Manish Chander, a report was made by Kuldip Chand, Process Server that he made enquiry from Civil Nazar. Amritsar and came to know that there is no Bailiff or Process Server by the name of Manish Chander. It is argued that Manish Chander is working as a Process Server and his examination is relevant much less material for just and proper decision of the application for setting aside ex parte decree. The petitioner cannot be put to disadvantage because of a wrong report made by one of the serving officers of the Court. It is further argued that as the respondent is yet to start his evidence in rebuttal, no prejudice is likely to be caused to him in case the petitioner is allowed one opportunity to examine Manish Chander, Process Server. The petitioner has already deposited Rs. 20,000/ - as costs with the Registry of this Court in compliance with order dated 23.12.2014 passed at the time of notice of motion and the said amount may be paid to the respondent.

(2.) Counsel for respondent No. 1. on the other hand, has submitted that the present petition has been preferred in order to delay execution of the decree passed in his favour.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records.