VASUDEO Vs. MULK RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's Misc. appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, refusing to set aside the ex-parte decree passed against him by the learned trial court on March 13, 1977.

(2.) THE facts so far as they are relevant for the disposal of this appeal now may be set out in brief:

(3.) VENKATESWARA Rao's case (supra) is important. It was also a case of return of the registered envelop with endorsement of the Postman as "refused". Meghji Kanji Patel's case as also the case of Nirmalabala Debi vs. Provat Kumar Basu (9) were referred and approved. It was observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as under: "it may be that, on a closer examination of evidence on record, the court could have reached the conclusion that the defendant had full knowledge of the notice and had actually refused it knowingly. It is not always necessary, in such cases, to produce the postman who tried to effect service. The denial of service by a party may be found to be incorrect from its own admissions or conduct. "