JASKARAN SINGH Vs. BANK OF BARODA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the appellant against the order dated 30.09.2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar in Civil Misc. Case No.27/2003, whereby the learned trial court has rejected the application preferred on behalf of the appellant for setting aside the exparte decree dated 06.11.2001 passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar in Civil Suit No.56/1996.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, who is a medical practitioner by profession, had obtained a loan from the respondent-bank for purchasing a car. In the loan application form, the respondent No.2 was stood as guarantor for the appellant, and loan for a sum of Rs.79,000/- was sanctioned to the appellant. The appellant was not regular in repaying the loan amount and, therefore, the bank filed a suit for recovery of the remaining loan amount. Summonses of the suit were issued to the appellant as well as the respondent No.2, who stood as guarantor for the appellant. The summonses of the suit were served upon the respondent No.2, however, the same were not served on the appellant as it was reported that the appellant was not residing on the address for which the summonses were issued. The respondent-bank moved an application before the trial court for substituted service upon the appellant by way of publication. The said application was allowed by the trial court and after publication of the notice in the news paper, exparte proceedings were initated against the appellant and, thereafter, the exparte decree was passed against the appellant on 06.11.2001. The appellant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC before the learned trial court for setting aside the exparte proceedings and the exparte decree dated 06.11.2001. The said application was contested by the bank and the learned trial court, after hearing the parties, rejected the said application vide order dated 30.09.2005. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the learned trial court had not taken any steps to serve the summons of the suit upon the appellant in ordinary course and has straightway allowed the substituted service. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the substituted service, as accepted by the learned trial court, was also not sufficient as the news paper in which, the summonses were published, was not a widely circulated news paper and had no circulation over the place where the appellant was residing. The learned counsel for the appellant has, therefore, urged that the learned trial court has not taken into consideration all the aspects and has wrongly rejected the application preferred on behalf of the appellant for setting aside the exparte decree.