SMT. RAJJO D/O LATE SHRI MANI RAM, W/O SHRI BALRAM, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O CHAK 16 JSN, DHANI RAJPURIYA, TEHSIL, NOHAR, DISTRICT HANUMANGARH, RAJASTHAN Vs. SATISH KUMAR S/O SHRI RAM PRATAP, B/C MEGHWAL, R/O FEFANA, TEHSIL NOHAR, DISTRICT HANUMANGARH, RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.5.2011, passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by Smt. Jairo under Order 9, Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.

(2.) The respondent filed a suit for specific performance. Summons of the suit were sent to Smt. Jairo. On 24.3.2006, it was noticed by the court that notices were served on daughter of the defendant and no one was present. Where-after, the matter was adjourned to 11.5.2006. On 11.5.2006 fresh summons for 29.7.2006 were ordered to be issued. The summons were issued on 16.6.2006 and on 29.7.2006 it was noticed that the lawyers were on strike and that the defendant has been served and the matter was again adjourned. On 9.11.2006, as no one appeared on behalf of Smt. Jairo, the matter was ordered to be proceeded ex-parte against her. Where-after, after recording evidence of the plaintiff, the suit was decreed on 14.8.2008.

(3.) After the suit was decreed, present application under Order 9, Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure was filed on 18.4.2009 by the defendant, inter alia, with the averments that the process server of the court had taken her thumb impression, however, the copy of the summons and plaint were not given to her and only date on a slip was given to her. On 29.7.2006, when she visited the court premises along with her grandson-Hariram, the lawyers were on strike and her grandson after taking her thumb impression on few blank papers, left her back to the village. When she made enquiries about the litigation, the grandson assured her that he would look after the said matter and was getting the same attendant.