S SANMUKH SINGH Vs. AMARJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision position arises in the following circumstances.

(2.) RESPONDENTS I to 3 brought a suit for declaration that they were owners of some land in village Gujral on the basis of their long and continued adverse possession over it. The suit was brought as far back as on 3 -10 -1966. On the filing of the suit, summons was issued to the only defendant namely Bhari Mangat Singh, who was shown to be a resident of village Gujral Tehsil Jammu. The respondents were ordered to deposit process fee for the defendant but they failed to do so on three dates namely, 28 -1 -1967, 25 -2 -1967 and 23 -3 -1967. The case was eventually adjourned to 25 -4 -1967 but on that date too neither the plaintiff respondents being present nor the process fee having been deposited, the suit dismissed for default. It was again restored on 3 -5 -1967. From the interim orders passed by the court on 24 -5 -67, 22 -6 -1967 an 18 -7 -1967 it appears that the defendant was not served. Still surprisingly the court passed an order for substituted Service on 7 -8 -1967. The date for appearance of the defendant in the court was fixed for 30 -8 -1967 but strangely enough notice was published in the newspaper namely, "Such" in its issue dt. 29 -8 -1967 i. e. only one day before the date of appearance in the court. On the cutting of the paper having been received no order could be passed on 30 -8 1967 and 6 -11 -1967 as the Presiding officer of the court was not present, Exparte proceedings eventually were taken against the defendant on 22 -11 -1967. One of the plaintiffs appeared as their own witness and the trial court on the basis of the solitary statement of the plaintiff readily passed an exparte decree in favour of the respondents on 26 -12 -1967. An application for setting aside the aforesaid decree was moved by the petitioner herein on 12 -5 -1970 which was based on the allegations that he had come to Jammu in connection with some work. Objections to this application were also invited from respondents 1 to 3 who simply stated that the application was barred by time and that Mangat Singh Bhari had been duly served. It is not necessary to reproduce the other pleas raised by them as they are not relevant for the purpose of this application in the background of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Whereas the petitioner examined Manohar Lal as his witness besides appearing in the witness box himself. Respondents 1 to 3 examined Amrit Kaur, Kirpal Singh besides Amarjeet Singh respondent also appearing as his own witness. During these proceedings it was sought to be proved by the respondents that Mangat Singh had full knowledge of the institution of the suit/culminating into the exparte decree. Both the courts below have unreservedly believed the statement of these witnesses and having come to the conclusion that Mangat Singh had knowledge of the filing of the suit during his life time dismissed the petitioners application for setting aside the exparte decree.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also carefully gone through record.