MONA ENTERPRISES Vs. BANARSI DASS & SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shorn of all unnecessary details, the factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the appellant/defendant suffered exparte money decree and the application filed for setting aside exparte decree has been ordered to be dismissed on the ground that since the RAD Exts. RW1/A and RW1/C containing the summons had been sent at the proper and correct address and contains endorsement "Refused", therefore, it is proved on record that the appellant/defendant was duly served and since he failed to contest the suit despite service, the Court had no option but to have proceeded exparte against him.

(2.) Now, adverting to the RAD Exts. RW1/A and RW1/C, these admittedly contained summons that was sent to the defendant calling upon him to appear in the Court and file his written statement but it did not contain the copy of the plaint, whereas it is obligatory on the part of the Court to have sent a copy of the plaint and other documents appended thereto, in terms of Order 5, Rule 2 CPC, which reads as under:-

(3.) Identical question came up before the Honourable Supreme Court in Nahar Enterprises vs. Hyderabad Allwyn Ltd. and another, 2007 9 SCC 466, wherein it was observed as under:-