Gokal Chand Mital, J. - (1.) ON 3rd March, 1981, Puran Singh filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 6,120/ -against Sohan Singh on the basis of a pronote. The trial Court vide order dated 7th April, 1981 directed Sohan Singh to be served for 6th May, 1981 by registered post The registered letter came back vide report of the postman dated 14th April, 1981 to the effect that the addressee had refused to take the registered letter and on the basis of that the trial Court proceeded and passed ex parte decree on 19th May, 1981.
(2.) ON 17th September, 1981 the judgment debtor filed application under Order 9 Rule 13. Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree saying that he was not served in the suit nor had ever refuse to received the registered cover. The application was contested by the decree -holder. On the issues framed in the case, the evidence was led and the trial Court held that the application was time barred and that it was proved that Sohan Singh had refused to take the registered letter. On judgment debtor's appeal, it was held that the application was within time and to this extent the finding of the trial Court was reversed but the other finding of the trial Court was endorsed. This is revision by the judgment debtor. After considering the matter, I am of the view that the statement of the postman does not inspire confidence. According to his statement he had gone to serve the registered letter on 14 April, 1982 whereas the Court had ordered on 7th April, 1981 to serve the Defendant by registered post for 6th May, 1981. May be that the postman gave wrong year. He was cross -examined if there was any other person present when the judgment debtor refused to take the registered letter. He said that his servant was present and yet no attestation of his was taken in support of refusal. In this case, there has been un -usual haste in decision of the case, as the suit was filed on 3rd March, 1981 and was finally disposed of on 19th May, 1981. The resort to substituted service can only be made when the Court is of the opinion that the Defendant is wanting to evade service and during this short period, the Court could not reasonably form such an opinion. The ultimate impression left in my mind is that the judgment debtor has been condemned unheard.
(3.) FOR the reasons recorded above, this revision is allowed and after allowing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code, the ex parte decree dated 19th May, 1981 is hereby set aside. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear in the trial Court on 12th May, 1986 when a date would be given to the Defendant for filing of the written statement. Since it would be one of the old suits, the trial Court will pay special attention for speedy disposal. The parties are left to bear their own costs.;