GAN NATH Vs. CHIMAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition by the plaintiff-petitioaecs is directed against the order dated February 24, 1979, by the learned District Judge. Udaipur. whereby the learned District Judge set aside the order by the Civil Judge, Udaipur, dated December 19, 1978, dismissing the defendant's application under Order IX Rule 13, C. P. C. for setting aside the ex parte decree dated March 26, 1978 against him.

(2.) THE relevent facts giving rise to the revision petition may be stated within a narrow compass. THE plaintiffs filed a suit for ejectment from a plot of land against the defendant-non-petitioner in the court of Civil Judge, Udaipur on November 30, 1977. THE first date fixed in the case was February' 28, 1978' but since the summons issued to the defendant was returned unserved on that date, the case was adjourned to April 24, 1978. On March 8, 1978, the plaintiffs by way of abundant caution, made an application that in addition to the issue of summons in the ordinary course, summons may be directed to be issued and served by registered post at both the addresses of the defendant, namely, Udaipur and Salumber, where he was likely to be found THE postal acknowledgment receipt of the summons sent by registered post at Salumber address is No 0865 and that sent at Udaipur address is No. 0866, Both are dated March 19, 1978 THE registered letter No. 0866 sent at Salumber address was returned with an endorsement dated March 27, 1978. by the postal employee that the addressee had refused to accept the registered letter. THE registered letter No. 0866 sent at Udaipur address was, however, taken delivery of by one Narulal, who signed the acknowledgment receipt for the defendant Chiman Lal. THE case was accordingly taken up on April 24, 1978. THE defendant was absent and the court recorded an order to the effect that service had been duly effected, but while doing so, a mistake crept in, inasmuch as it was the letter issued at Salumber address which had been refused, but on account of postal acknowledgment receipts being wrongly attached, it was mentioned that the summons received at Udaipur address had been refused. In any case, the court held that the service was complete. Consequently, it directed exparte proceedings to be taken against the defendant and adjourned the case to May 26, 1978 for the plaintiff's evidence. THE defendant was absent on May 26, 1978, also. THE plaintiffs examined their witnesses and after hearing the plaintiff's counsel the court passed an exparte decree the same day.

(3.) THE result is that I allow this revision petition, set aside the order made by the learned District Judge, Udaipur and restore that of the Civil Judge, Udaipur, dated December 19, 1978. THEre will be no order as to costs.