BADAMILAL Vs. HARSHVARDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) This revision is directed against the order dt. 8-7-91 passed by District Judge, Udaipur rejecting the petitioner's application under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. for setting aside ex parte decree against the petitioner.

(3.) In suit for pre-emption against the petitioner and his vendor Kurilal, in the first instance, summons were issued on 26-4-82 for 6-7-92. Summonses were not served on the petitioner as he was out of station when the process server went to his house. Thereafter the Court directed to issue summons afresh and in addition to that the Court also directed that summons be also sent through registered post in terms of O. 5, Rule 19A, C.P.C. The next date fixed was 6-9-82. The registry containing summons of Badamilal petitioner was returned with an endorsement of refusal and this was held to be sufficient in terms of Order 5, Rule 19A (2). Since the petitioner had not appeared on that date, and service on him has been held to be sufficient the Court ordered to proceed ex parte against him. The summonses were ordered to be issued against Kurilal co-defendant who was served before 13-5-83. Kurilal also did not appear in the suit, and he too was ordered to be proceeded ex parte. After recording of the evidence of plaintiff and hearing an ex parte decree was passed against the defendant-petitioner on. 13-7-84.