ANIL KUMAR Vs. AMIT NARAYAN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsels for the respective parties.

(2.) The instant civil revision application has been preferred against the order dated 31st July 2009, passed by the Subordinate Judge-VI, Ranchi, in Misc. Case No. 15 of 2007 arising out of Title Suit No. 251 of 2006. An ex parte decree was passed on 25th May 2007 against the opposite parties, which was re-called by the Court on an application under Order IX Rule 13 read with section 151 of the C.P.C.

(3.) The facts of the case, in short, are that a declaratory suit was preferred by the plain-tiffs along with an injunction application on 16-9-2006. The suit was admitted and no-tices were issued to the opposite parties on 18-9-2006 under registered cover as well as through Nazarat and on 27-9-2006 the ser-vice was effected on defendant No. 1, who received notice on behalf of herself and as also on behalf of defendant No. 2. Notice was also sent through special messenger but the same was refused on the ground that they have already been served. However, this ser-vice was not accepted by the Court and, there-fore, the plaintiff was directed to effect sub-stituted service by publication vide order dated 5th December 2006. Accordingly, no-tices were published in the daily Hindi news-paper "AAJ". Thereafter the Court vide or-der dated 10th January 2007 passed order holding that the service was sufficient upon the defendants and fixed the suit for ex-parte hearing and the ex-parte judgment and de-cree was passed on 25th May 2007. Imme-diately thereafter an inspection slip was moved along with Vakalatnama through counsel on behalf of both the defendants on 29th May 2007 and the inspection was done on 30th May 2007. The Miscellaneous Case No. 15 of 2007 was filed on behalf of the defendants-opposite parties under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree as the defendants did not receive the notice and the publica-tion in daily Hindi newspaper "Aaj" was not sufficient for the reasons that it is not widely circulated. It has very limited circulation and the defendant is not subscriber of newspaper "AAJ".