SURESH KUMAR Vs. DWARKA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SIBLINGS are the rival parties pitted against each other in this fierce legal battle of supremacy.

(2.) BONE of contention in this appeal is the impugned order dated 10th of April 2013, rendered by the learned Addl. District Judge No.1, Bhilwara (for short, 'learned trial Court'), whereby the application of the appellant under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex parte decree is rejected.

(3.) THE appellant made endeavor to set aside the ex parte decree by submitting application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC on 31st of May 2012 before the learned trial Court. In the application aforesaid, the appellant has specifically pleaded that the summons issued by the Court were never served on him and the address on which the summons were sent was not the place where the appellant was ordinarily residing at the relevant point of time. The appellant has also averred in the application that there was a report of the process server that the premises in question is closed yet on the same address summons were sent by registered post, which was nothing but an empty formality. While taking a dig at the substituted service by way of publication in the newspaper dated 22nd of April 2010, the appellant has mentioned in the application that for resorting to substituted mode of service, the provisions of Order 5 Rule 20 CPC are not adhered to by the respondent plaintiff in letter and spirit. The appellant categorically alleged in the application that the suit itself is based on false and concocted facts. The appellant has also made a positive assertion that he came to know about the ex parte decree for the first time on 15th of May 2012 and thereafter he applied for certified copy on 22nd of May 2012 28th which was received by him on of May 2012, immediately after receipt of the certified copy, the requisite application was made by him.