MUNSHI RAM Vs. SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter referred to as the Code) as directed against the order dated 28.6.2001. whereby the learned Additional district Judge has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 10.5.2000. passed by the learned sub Judge (I), Dharamsala. dismissng the applciaiton of the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 of the code for setting aside an ex -parte decree against him.

(2.) The brief and admitted facts leading to the presentation of the present petition are that respondent institud civil Suit No. 15 of 1992 against the petitioner and for default of appearance of the petitioner, the suit was decreed ex -parte on 29.7.1992. The petitioner moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code for setting aside ex -parte decree alongwith an applciaiton under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the application for setting aside ex -parte decree on 22.6.1996. The case of the petitioner, as averred in the applications, is that the summons s issued to him at the address of his native place were not served on him and the report of the Process Server that the summons were served on him through his mother, was wrong and that the petitioner, when appeared in the execution proceedings at a later stage, came to know about the ex -parte decree which was being sought to be executed against him and. thus, it is claimed that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the application for setting aside ex -parte decree and also for setting aside the ex -parte decree.

(3.) The respondent ontested the applications by averring in his reply that there was due service on the petitioner and the applications are not only frivolous but also barred by limitation and deserved to be dismissed with costs.