HARBANS LAL Vs. RAMESH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been preferred against an order passed by the District Judge Jammu whereby an appeal preferred by the present petitioner against an order passed by Sub -Registrar Munsiff Jammu stands dismissed. Circumstances under which this litigation has come to this court be noticed.

(2.) THE present petitioner suffered an exparte decree. An application for setting aside the same was filed. Plea taken by the petitioner was that he was not served with the plaint, he also stated that he was a member of Defence Services. As he had no knowledge he was unable to appear, he stated that he acquired knowledge of the decree on 26.12.91 and preferred a petition for setting aside exparte proceedings on 28.12.1991. It was pleaded by him that the limitation should be counted from the date of .knowledge. According to him he acquired effective knowledge on 26.12.91. This plea of his did not find favour with by the trial court. First appellate court has also refused to accept the explanation given by the petitioner, it is this factor which led to the dismissal of his application. Petitioner has approached this court now.

(3.) THE petitioner wrote a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu. it is this factor which led the courts below to come to the conclusion that the petitioner came to know about the decree on a date earlier to 26.12.91. This letter stands reproduced in the order passed by the District Judge. This is being reproduced below again.