KALYAN SINGH Vs. SOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-defendant has preferred this appeal to challenge order dated 02.11.2015, passed by Additional District Judge, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar, dismissing his application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex-parte decree dated 15.05.2007.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract, inter-alia, on the ground that appellant-defendant executed an agreement to sale dated 08.01.2001 in his favour for the suit property but later on declined to perform his part of the contract. Learned trial Court issued summons to the appellant and those summons were served but the service of summons was taken as irregular service and, therefore, fresh summons were issued. The summons issued by learned trial Court second time were served by affixation, as the process server reported that despite tendering summons, appellant refused to accept the same. The affixation was carried out in presence of two witnesses and both of them also appended their signatures overleaf the summons. Treating the service of summons on appellant sufficient, learned trial Court proceeded ex-parte against him and finally after recording ex-parte evidence of the respondent-plaintiff decreed the suit on 15.05.2007.

(3.) Feeling dismayed with the ex-parte decree, at the behest of appellant, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC read with Section 151 was submitted on 31.07.2007 before learned trial Court. The application is contested by respondent-plaintiff and the learned trial Court, after examining the matter, recorded its finding that service of summons was sufficient and, therefore, no case for setting aside ex-parte decree within the four corners of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is made out. With this finding, learned trial Court rejected the application.