SMT.NGARIYANBAM(O)INDIRA DEVI Vs. SMT. AYEKPAM (N) LAISHRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R.K.Nokulsana, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) In Original Suit No.22 of 2012 pending in the court of learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Imphal West the petitioner is the defendant No.4. She was set ex parte by order dt. 4.1.2013 in the said suit. Long after she was set ex parte, she filed an application to set aside the ex parte order which was registered as Judl. Misc. Case No.88 of 2014. The said Judl. Misc. Case NO.88/14 having been filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed, Judl. Misc. Case No.89 of 2014 was also filed for condoning delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte order. The learned Civil Judge, Jr.Division, Manipur West, by order dated 18.5.2015, rejected the application for condonation of delay and the said order is the subject matter of challenge in this Revision.

(3.) The plea of the petitioner is that in the year 2012 a person who was not known to her came to her house along with the plaintiff No.3 and introduced himself as staff of the Court and instructed her to sign on a paper produced by him. Since the petitioner is illiterate, she could not read the contents of the paper and inquired about the matter. She was told that she is to sign the document as a witness and she signed such paper. She had no knowledge that the paper on which her signature was obtained, was the summon in the suit in which she was defendant No.4. Later on, an ex parte injunction order was passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division and in the said injunction order vide J.M.No.31 of 2014 notice was served on her. Thereafter, she came to know about filing of the suit only in June, 2014. Immediately thereafter, she filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order on 25.7.2014. The above plea of the petitioner was resisted by the plaintiff respondents on the ground that summon had been duly served on her in the suit and she preferred not to appear for which she was set ex parte. The learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division also, in the impugned order, came to the conclusion that summon in the suit was served on the petitioner on 01.12.2012 and she did not take any step in the suit for which she had been set ex parte. The plea taken by the petitioner was not accepted by the Court and consequently the application for condonation of delay was rejected.