- (1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition aggrieved by order dated 13.09.2012 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Udaipur and order dated 06.04.2016 passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Udaipur, vide which the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was rejected.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for malicious prosecution against the petitioner on 29.10.1999. The suit was decreed ex parte on 01.04.2004. The execution petition was filed by the plaintiff, in which notices were served on the petitioner on 29.03.2008. The petitioner moved an application for setting aside the ex parte decree on 19.03.2010 stating therein that she received the information about the ex parte decree from the Advocate of the plaintiff/respondent on 04.03.2010. The application for setting aside the ex parte decree was rejected by the trial court on 13.09.2012 and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate court on 06.04.2016, aggrieved by which the present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that service of the summons in the suit and the notices in the execution proceedings were manipulated, as no notices were served on the petitioner and the petitioner, for the first time, came to know about the ex parte decree on 04.03.2010.;