AHMED KHAN Vs. RAMESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties, and perused the record, and have also seen the original summon available on record, so also the two certified copies, one having been applied on 25.7.1997 and received on 7.8.1997, and the other applied on 11.8.1999 and received on 20.8.1999, and have also read the statements of appellant, respondents, and the process-server.

(2.) On perusal of the three summons, there is no manner of doubt that there has been an interpolation in the signature part of the summons purportedly appended, and denoting service of summon. A photostat certified copy applied on 25.7.1997 and obtained on 7.8.1997 is devoid of any interpretations, while the original, and the copy applied on 1 1.8.1999 and obtained on 20.8. 1999 is the photostat certified copy of the interpolated summons. Thus, it is clear that interpolation was effected somewhere during this period of Aug. 1997 to Aug., 1999, before that date, the statements of the present appellant had been recorded on 14.12.1994, and therein except denying the signatures on the summons nothing was said, while the statements of plaintiff-respondent have been recorded in the year 2002, during this interregnum period, all these things happened.

(3.) Significantly, the appellant in his statement had admitted that the process-server knows him for last 2-3 years, and is living in the same locality in which he is living. In this background, the learned lower Appellate Court has appreciated the conduct of the appellant in denying the admitted signatures available on record including those on the application for setting aside the exparte decree, vakalatnama, and even on the affidavit filed in the execution proceedings. With this, it has been considered that the appellant is projecting wrong story about his address.