Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THE present Misc. Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 11.02.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Udaipur respectively in Civil Misc. Case No. 92/2001 "Hukmi Chand Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors." and Civil Misc. Case No. 93/2001 "Manohar Lal Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.".
(2.) BY the impugned order dated 11.02.2009, the learned District Judge (Shri M.L. Sharma, RHJS) has rejected an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendants -applicants - Hukmi Chand and Manohar Lal against an ex parte decree of specific performance in respect of the suit premises, a residential house with open land, in favour of the plaintiff -Raj Kumar, who filed the suit for specific performance (Suit No. 103/1993 - "Raj Kumar Vs. Josh Mathis") and obtained an ex parte decree against the defendants -Hukmi Chand and Manohar Lal on 22.11.1994. The application was filed by the defendants on the ground that the summons of the suit issued by the learned Trial Court of District Judge, Udaipur never served upon them as the summons were issued for incomplete address "Hukmi Chand S/o Lal Chand, Beawar" and presumption of service was drawn by the learned Court below, as the same was purportedly sent by registered post under Order 5 Rule 19 -A of the Code of Civil Procedure. A copy of such summons for the date "04.07.1994" is produced as Annexure -B along with the memo of the present appeal.
(3.) THE reasons assigned by the learned District Judge, Udaipur for rejecting the application of the appellants/defendants/applicants filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure are quoted herein below for ready reference: - ;