R.S.Kejriwal, J. - (1.) This revision has been directed against the order dated 2.8.1991 passed by Additional Civil Judge No. 2, Ajmer, whereby he set-aside the order dated 19.12.1983, passed by M.J. M. First Class, Ajmer City (East) Ajmer, in Misc. Case No. 36/79.
(2.) The brief relevant facts of the case are that Mohanlal filed a suit against Kanhiyalal in the court M.J.M. Ajmer City (East), Ajmer. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendant but it is alleged that the same defendant refused to accept the notice on the ground that the same was in English. The trial court proceeded exported and ultimately passed a decree exparte against the defendant Kanhiyalal. Kanhiyalal filed an application for setting-aside the exparte decree. That application was rejected by the trial court. Then Sri Kanhiyalal filed an appeal which was allowed by Additional Civil Judge No. 2, Ajmer, vide his order dated 2.8.1991. The exparte-decree was set-aside. This order has been challenged in revision by the legal heir of Mohan Lal. It has been argued by Mr. Kaushik that the defendant made a wrong statement that the summons were in English though it is apparent from the record that the summons were in Hindi. He also put his signatures on the summons and wrote the aforesaid words : "Copy of summons is in English. It may be given in Hindi." It appears that copy of the plaint, which was annexed with the summons was in English which is apparent from the record of the case. The lower appellate court came to the conclusion that if the defendant refused to accept the summons, the summons should have been served in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Civil Procedure Code and so the appeal was accepted. I am in agreement with the order passed by the lower appellate court.
(3.) Mr. Kaushik placed reliance on M/s Anand Thailee Bhandar v. Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd., RLR 1989 (2) 94 , in which it has been held that exparte decree can not be set aside merely on the ground that there was irregularity in service of summons.;