NAND RAM Vs. BHOPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, in 1910, sued on a mortgage made by two joint brothers, Bhopal and Bahadur. Bhopal, his eon Baddari, grandson Harnarain Singh, and nephew Sham Lai, were defendants. Baddari was appointed guardian ad litem of his minor son Harnarain, and notice was served upon him on the 14th of August, 1910. Bhopal signed it as a witness. Notice was not served on Bhopal personally, but the summons was affixed on the door of his house. The record does not show if this was deemed 6y the Munsif to be sufficient service. The suit was decreed on the 19th of December, 1910. The decree against Bhopal was exparte. An application for an order absolute was made on the 16th of July, 1911, and granted.

(2.) Bhopal, on the 1st of August, 1911, applied under Order IX, Rule 13, to have the expert decree set aside, stating in the affidavit that on the date on which the case was heard, he was in Allahabad. The Munsif, holding that there was sufficient reason for absence, set aside the ex parte decree on the 18th of December, 1911, and made another decree at variance with the ex parte decree on the 13th of February, 1912.

(3.) The decree-holder, on the 19th of February, 1912, came to this Court in revision against the order, dated the 18th of December, 1911, but never appealed against the decree, dated the 13th of February, 1912.