ISHRO Vs. SARMUKH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been directed against the orders of the Courts below refusirg to set aside an ex-parte decree passed in favour of the plaintiff-respondents.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondents filed the suit on 29-12-1970 which was orderd to be registered and the petitioner was summoned for 22-2-1971. On 22-2-1971, the Presiding Officer happened to be on leave and the case was posted for proper orders for 26-6-1971. On 26-2-l971, the defendant was ordered to be summoned for 14-4-1971, on which date, the Presiding Officer happened to be out of station and the case was posted for 4-5-1971 for proper orders On 4-5-1971, the Presiding Officer again happened to be on leave and the case was posted for 26-5-1971 for proper orders. On 26-5-1971, notice was ordered to be issued to the defendant for 6-7-1971 on payment of process fee and deposit of registered envelope. On 6-7-1971, the summons were not received served or unserved and fresh order for issuance of summons for 23-8-1971 was passed. On the aforesaid date i. e. 23-8-1971, the registered envelope was received with the report that the defendant was not available at her house. Upon the aforesaid report, the Court felt satisfied that the defendant could not be served in the ordinary course of process and, therefore, she should be summoned by way of publication in Ekta Sandesh of Hindi Weekly of Delhi. The publication was accordingly made. After few dates when the publication was got done, an ex parte decree was ultimately passed on 20-10-1972. The application for setting aside the ex parte decree was filed on 18-11-1972, i. e within time. The application having been dismissed by both the Courts below the petitioner-defendant has come up in revision petition before this Court.

(3.) MR. N. B. S. Gujral, the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that even a gist of various proceedings reproduced in para No. 10 of the order of the appellate Court does not show that a case for substituted service was made out and that there was any refusal on the part of the petitioner. Before appreciating the contention, it is necessary to reproduce the gist of the proceedings before the trial Court which are as under :