LAWS(P&H)-2018-2-154

RANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

Decided On February 07, 2018
RANJIT SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE BANK OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-defendant No. 2 is in revision petition against the order dated 30.11.2015 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal, whereby, the application filed under Order 9, Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 01.11.2010, has been dismissed and judgment and decree dated 19.07.2017 (Annexure P-2) rendered by the Additional District Judge, Kaithal, vide which the appeal, has also been dismissed.

(2.) Mr. Sandeep Panwar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent-plaintiff/State Bank of India instituted a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 95,854/- which was decreed, vide ex parte judgment and decree dated 01.11.2010 (Annexure P-3). He acquired the knowledge of the ex parte judgment and decree aforesaid on 16.04.2012 when the officials of the Bank/decree-holder visited him and apprised about the decree. The ex parte proceedings were initiated on 13.06.2008. On acquiring the knowledge of the ex parte decree, after inspection of the file, an application bearing No. 16 of 2012 dated 16.05.2012 was moved stating therein that petitioner-defendant was never served properly as the summons were sent at the address of H.No. 875/20, Partap Gate, Kaithal but the process server in his reports dated 13.02.2008 stated that "adampata" means "not available" and on 22.02.2008 reported refusal at the address of milk dairy at Dhand Road, i.e., second address, though there was no such address of defendant No. 2. The alleged 'munadi' conducted in the Kaithal City on 28.04.2008 was also not in accordance with law as the same was not witnessed by any of the witness. Non-appearance of the applicant/defendant No. 2 was not intentional but only to the reasons mentioned above.

(3.) The trial Court on the basis of the aforementioned, issued notice to the respondent-plaintiff which was contested. Since the parties were at variance, the trial Court framed as many as 4 issues including the issue of relief.