VINEET KOTHARI, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel.
(2.) THIS misc. appeal is directed against the order dt. 22.11.1996 whereby the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex -parte decree dt. 20.09.1996 was rejected by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court has rejected the said application on the ground that the summons of the Court were served on one Radha, claiming to be the wife of plaintiff Banshi Lal Teli and, therefore, the service was treated as sufficient and complete and ex -parte proceedings were drawn against the defendant and the suit was decreed ex -parte. The suit was for recovery of money.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant -defendant submits that the name of wife of defendant Banshi Lal Teli was Narbada and not Radha Sahu. His address was also 36, Ashwini Bazar, Udaipur (Raj.) and not Nehru Bazar, Udaipur and, therefore, the summons wrongly served on one Radha was treated as sufficient and trial Court proceeded ex -parte.;