TILAK RAJ Vs. MST LALLI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision against an order of the Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, dated 28-7-1975, confirming the order of the Munsiff, Jaipur City (East) dated 5-4-1974, by which the application of the petitioner for setting aside ex parte decree was rejected.

(2.) The short facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this revision-petition, may be stated as follows:-- Mst. Lalli Bai instituted a suit against Tilak Raj, petitioner, for arrears of rent and ejectment. Summonses were issued to the defendant and were entrusted to Roop Narain, process-server, for service. It was reported by Roop Narain, process-server, on 31-7-1968, that the petitioner refused to accept the service of the summons and hence substituted service under Order V, Rule 17, Civil P. C. had to be effected by affixure of a copy of the summons along with a copy of the plaint on a conspicuous part of the house in which the petitioner ordinarily resided. Upon receipt of this report on the back of the summons, the court proceeded ex parte against the petitioner on 17-9-1968, because it was satisfied that the petitioner refused to accept summons when a copy of the summons along with a copy of the plaint was tendered to him and that upon his refusal the process- server affixed a copy of the summons along with a copy of the plaint on a conspicuous part of his house as required by Order V, Rule 17, Civil P. C. Later on, the court passed an ex parte decree against the petitioner on 13-10-1968. The petitioner filed an application under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil P. C. for setting aside the ex parte decree on 29-11-1968. It was alleged in the application that he never refused to accept the summons and to acknowledge the service and that a copy of the summons was never affixed on a conspicuous part of his house. The learned Munsiff, Jaipur City (East) made an inquiry into the matter and came to a conclusion upon evidence of Roop Narain, process-server, that the petitioner refused to accept the summons and on his refusal the process-server affixed a copy of the summons along with a copy of the plaint on a conspicuous part of his house and that the service was thus complete. It was further held by the learned Munsiff that the petitioner could not show that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing in the court on 17-9-1968. Consequently, the learned Munsiff rejected the petition for setting aside the ex parte decree. Aggrieved by such rejection, the petitioner preferred an appeal in the court of the District Judge, Jaipur City, wherefrom it was transferred to the court of the Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, who, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the learned Munsiff. Hence, this revision petition.

(3.) I have gone through the record and heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the non-petitioner.