AAR KAY TRADERS Vs. SATISH ELECTRONICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Civil Judge (Jr. Div), (I), Dharamsala dated 23.5.2007 whereby he has allowed the application filed by the respondent, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, and set aside the ex -parte proceedings. While doing so, the learned trial Court has held that on a conjoint reading of Order 5 Rules 9 and 21 CPC, the Court can order service by registered post acknowledgement due only if the defendant resides within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, instituted a suit on 22.2.2005 for recovery of Rs. 62,620 along with interest in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala, who assigned this case to the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div) I, Kangra at Dharamsala. The respondent hereinafter referred to as the defendant, resides at Jawali which admittedly falls out side the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Dharamsala. On 7.7.2005, the trial Court in its order recorded that the registered AD sent to the defendant had been received back with an endorsement of the postal authority that the defendant had refused to receive the same and, therefore, the defendant was deemed to be served in terms of Order V, Rule 9 CPC. The defendant was accordingly proceeded ex parte and the ex parte evidence of the plaintiff was recorded. Thereafter when the case was listed for arguments, the defendant filed an application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC for setting aside the ex parte proceeding.

(3.) I have heard Shri Vikas Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Janesh Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent who have rendered able and valuable assistance to this Court.