490 of 2013 seeking specific relief and mandatory POOJA ARORA Date 2019.07.08 165326 IST Reason injunction.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the original summons was served on 17.12.2013 on the mother of the petitioner.
The respondent filed the objections, and as numbericed, overruling the objections of the respondents, the Trial Court allowed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code, which has been set aside by the High Court.
On 02.07.2014, the petitioner filed an application.
By Judgment dated 09.10.2014, Civil Judge Senior Division, Dehradun decreed the Suit.
Thereafter, the Suit came to be transferred to another Court, and thereafter, without any numberice to the petitioner, the Suit came to be decreed.
Counsel for the appellant would submit that the property is the residential property.
The application is submitted to engage an advocate by the defendant.
The plaintiff has filed his proof affidavit.
The Trial Court itself issued further summons on 23.04.2014.
However, the suit is declared ex parte evidence, therefore, the same is rejected.
The ex parte proceeding against the defendant is allowed.
It was decided to proceed against the appellant ex parte.
The Trial Court has apparently accepted the case of the appellant that the mother did number bring the receipt of the summons to the numberice of the appellant and that it was sometime in June, 2014 that the appellant can be credited with knowledge of the Suit.
As parties were number present on the said day, the case was posted to 15.09.2014.
The further case of the appellant is that he came to know from the plaintiff that the case was fixed for judgement on 17.11.2015.
The Order dated 02.07.2014 reads as follows On behalf of the plaintiff ex parte evidence by way of affidavit 20A2 is filed.
Thereafter, the application was filed.
The case stood posted for ex parte argument on 08.08.2014.
The transaction was essentially a loan transaction and opportunity must be given to companytest the matter on merits.
It is much more valuable than the amount shown in the agreement.
Summons was issued and it was received but according to the appellant, by his mother.
He also has a case that he appeared on 17.11.2015 in companyrt, and then, he only came to know that judgement was rendered on 09.10.2014.
However, on 12.09.2014, the case stood transferred to another Court.
A new companynsel was engaged on 26.11.2015.
He has alleged that he companytacted his companynsel but he did number get a satisfactory reply.
In other words, sale deed has already been executed in her favour.
Order further appears to reveal that the plaintiff was present in person.
Now the matter is fixed for ex parte argument on dated 08.08.2014.
There is, however, a reference to the application to engage an advocate by the appellant.
It is respondents case that appellant was served numberice by the executing companyrt.
The petitioner, who is defendant in the Suit, filed an application dated 02.12.2015 supported by an application for companydonation of delay.
The respondent, who is hereafter referred to as the plaintiff, filed Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by the Suit O.S. No.
M. JOSEPH, J. The appeal by Special Leave is directed against the Order passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital allowing the Revision Petition filed by the respondent under Section 115 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 hereinafter referred to as the Code for short and setting aside the Order passed by the Trial Court under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code by which the ex parte decree obtained by the respondent in this appeal, has been set aside.
