KUNDAN SINGH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the order of the District Judge Alwar dated 13.10.1995 by which the revision of the petitioner was dismissed. An ex parte decree was passed on 29.7.1987. This was done because a notice which was sent by registered post returned back with the endorsement that the petitioner has refused to received the same. Against the ex parte decree the respondent filed a revision and notices were served on the petitioner from which it has come to his knowledge that some proceedings are going on. File was inspected on 10.2.1988 and an application for setting aside the ex parte decree was moved on 11.2.1988 along with an application for condonation of delay. The case of petitioner is that he was not aware of any of the proceedings going on against him and was never served with any notice. The application for setting aside the ex parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 was moved before the Judge, Agriculture Debt Relief Court. Prayer was made to summon the Postman. This application was dismissed and the revision preferred before the District Judge was also dismissed.

(2.) BY this writ petition it is submitted that great injustice has been done to the petitioner.

(3.) THE petitioner has alleged that it came to his knowledge on 5.2.1988 when a notice from the revisional Court was received by him. The application was submitted within thirty days from the date of notice. Questions as to whether the application was submitted within the limitation or whether the petitioner refused to receive the registered notice, are essentially questions of fact. The Agriculture Debt Relief Court would proceed to decide the application of petitioner and would call the Postman in evidence. The appropriate order would be passed in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Petition allowed.