MANMOHAN SINGH Vs. NARINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has impugned an ex-parte order of his ejectment made on 18.2.1999. His application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte ejectment is also dismissed by the Court on 10.10.2006 and that is how he has impugned both the orders in the present revision petition. Plea is that the petitioner was not served and as such was wrongly proceeded ex-parte. While issuing notice of motion, the dispossession of the petitioner was stayed subject to deposit of Rs. 50,000/- with the Executing Court within a period of one month.

(2.) NOTICING briefly, it is averred that respondent-landlady has obtained the ex-parte order of ejectment by misrepresentation and fraud. Plea is that no service was effected on the petitioner and he never intentionally or otherwise absented from the proceedings in the court. As per the petitioner, he learnt about the ex-parte order of ejectment only on 18.1.2000, when respondent- landlady came to the tenanted premises with 5-6 persons. At that time, the copy of the order dated 18.2.1999, as per the petitioner, was shown to him. On learning about the ex-parte order of his ejectment and also of the fact that the execution was pending before the Court for 21.1.2000, he filed the application for setting aside of ex-parte ejectment order. In the application filed by the petitioner, it is urged that respondent-landlady had obtained a false report in connivance with the Process Server and otherwise the petitioner had a good case on merits. It is further urged that the petitioner would suffer a great loss and injury, if the ex-parte order of ejectment is not set aside.

(3.) THE trial Court gave opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence. The petitioner examined Daljit Singh as a witness and closed his evidence. Respondent-landlady examined Gurdial Singh as a witness, besides herself stepping into the witness box. Appreciating the evidence and the material on record, the trial court noticed that the ejectment petition was filed on 8.4.1996. Notices were issued to the respondent for 20.5.1996 and then for 13.8.1996. Another notice was issued for 17.10.1996 and when the petitioner could not be served, then he was ordered to be served through munadi for 10.1.1997. The case was adjourned to 20.2.1997 when none appeared for the petitioner and he was proceeded ex-parte. The ejectment petition was finally disposed on 18.2.1999. A fact of significance, which is on record, is through the evidence of Daljit Singh, who has stated that petitioner Manmohan Singh used to go off and on to foreign country and no summons were ever received by him. Evidence of Daljit Singh further is that the petitioner never refused the summons and that no munadi was effected.