KEDAR MULL AGARWALLA Vs. WAZIFUNNESSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Darjeeling, dated 8th June 1933, allowing an application of the opposite parties 1 and 2 for setting aside an ex parte decree passed against them Under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P.C.

(2.) The rule was issued on only one ground, namely, that the Subordinate Judge wrongly assumed jurisdiction to go into further enquiries as to the date of knowledge of the passing of the ex-parte decree, in view of the fact that the substituted service was due service according to law under Art. 164, Limitation Act, and the period of limitation commenced to run from the date of the service. It appears from the order sheet of the learned Subordinate Judge in the suit that on 8 September 1931 the Court recorded the following order: Summons not properly served. Plaintiffs advocate asks for summons Under Order 5, Rule 20. Issue summons accordingly. Fix 20 September 1931.

(3.) On 20 September 1931, the following order was recorded: Defendants are absent. Summons have been served on them Under Order 5, Rule 20. Two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the plaintiff. Affidavit has also been filed recording service of notice on defendants. Suit is decreed ex parte.