- (1.) An ex parte decree was passed against the defendant-petitioner and in favour of the plaintiff-respondents on 5.4.1982. It applied for setting aside of the ex parte decree by moving an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code stating that it gained knowledge of the same when a registered letter was received by it to appear in the Court on 11.1.1983 and that on inspection of the file it was revealed that the above said ex parte decree had been passed against it. The learned trial Court dismissed the application on 6.9.1986. An appeal filed by the petitioner also failed and was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, vide order dated 11.4.1986. The present revision petition is directed against the same.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He contends that it did not receive any notice by registered post as envisaged by Order 5, Rule 19-A, Civil Procedure Code In so far as the summonses issued to it are concerned, the same were received back by the Court with a report of the Process Server that the partner of the petitioner was out of station. He further contends that the Trial Court ought not to have drawn a presumption regarding due delivery of the notice sent by registered post.
(3.) I do not find any force in these submissions. The receipt from the post office regarding the summonses sent by registered post is on the file of the Trial Court as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge. It shows that the summonses were sent by registered post on 18.11.1981. It is with a view to avoid undue delay in the service of summonses that proviso to Rule 19-A ibid provides that where the summonses were properly addressed, pre-paid and duly sent by registered post acknowledgement due, the Court may declare that the summonses had been duly served on the defendant notwithstanding the fact that the acknowledgement had been lost or mislaid or for any other reason had not been received by the Court within 30 days from the date of the issue of summonses. This requirement of the statute having been complied with, the Court was well within its jurisdiction to declare due service of summonses on the defendant-petitioner.;