SHISHIR KUMAR,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for petitioner.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed against an order dated 11.11.2009 and order dated 13.5.2003 (Anneuxre 1 and 2 to writ petition). It appears that a suit was filed against petitioner for arrears of rent and ejectment after serving notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. In spite of service of summons by registered post, petitioner does not appear, as such, an ex-parte order was passed on 13.5.2003. When petitioner came to know he made an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code for setting a side the decree. Court below after considering the fact that notice was served and petitioner has not deliberately appeared before the Court, therefore, vide its order dated 11.11.2009, rejected the application under Order 9 Rule 13 holding therein that it is time barred also and on merits it has been held that no case is made out for setting aside the ex-parte decree. Hence, the present writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner submits that from finding recorded it is clear that there is an endorsement on the envelope that on the dates mentioned therein petitioner was not available. Petitioner has denied the signature on the summons. A specific averment was made in the application but the same was not considered and petitioner has been deprived only on technical grounds for hearing.;