BHAIRONLAL Vs. RAMPERTAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal in a suit for declaration that a certain decree obtained by Rampertab respondent on 28th April, 1951, was void, as having been obtained by fraud, the fraud alleged was that although the defendant was at Khori at the time, the plaintiff did not get the summons served at that place, but moved the court for service of summons by publishing in the newspaper of Kotah. The defendant contested the suit, The learned Civil Judge of Kotah by judgment dated 21st January, 1956, held that no fraud had been committed in the matter of service of summons, and dismissed the suit. The same judgment was upheld on appeal.

(2.) IN this second appeal it is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the substituted service had not been properly effected. The observation in the judgment of the trial court is that the present plaintiff, who was defendant in the earlier suit, was a resident of Kotah, Mohalla Rampura. When the first summons was issued, he was not served. The plaintiff thereupon informed the court that the defendant had gone to Khori near Shahpura in Jaipur District, and summons was issued on that address. The report of the process-server was that the defendant was not at Khori, and was reported to have gone to Jaipur. Rampertab, thereafter, made an application that the defendant was evading service, and it should be effected by publication in a newspaper. The court acceded to the request, and the summons was published in a newspaper. The court held the service to be sufficient, and as the defendant did not appear, it proceeded ex parte and decreed the suit, which was for the recovery of Rs. 110/-, on 25th April, 1953. Bhairon Lal, who was defendant in the earlier suit, filed the present suit for setting aside the decree on the ground of fraud, the fraud being a stated earlier.