SHRIDHAR Vs. SWAMISHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the Court:

(2.) THE contention of the present appellant is that summons have in fact never been served upon him and the postman was not examined before the court. The postman was in connivance with the plaintiff, has wrongly made the report on the summon, the present appellant could know about the decree only on 19.5.2006 when a threat was given by the plaintiff respondent. He moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 which was wrongly dismissed. Per contra, contention of the respondent plaintiff is that present appellant was knowing about the fact that the suit was decreed as on 5.1.2006 an FIR was got registered by the present appellant in which copy of civil suit was filed. Hence the fact of the suit was within the knowledge of present appellant and he malafidely did not appear before the court below, summons were duly served and there was no occasion to court below to allow application under Order 9 Rule 13.

(3.) FURTHER reliance has been placed on 2010 (9) SCC 157, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority and others vs Manju Jain and others where it has been held as under: "that in view of the provisions of Section 114 Illustration (f) of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 there is a presumption that the addressee has received the letter sent by registered post. However, the presumption is rebuttable on a consideration of evidence of impeccable character. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Dr. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra. " Again reliance has been placed on 1989 (2) SCC 602, Gujrat Electricity Board and another vs Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, it has been held as under: