The Trial Court also ordered substituted service by resorting to Order 5 Rule 20 P.C. by publication of summons in local daily Dainik Bhaskar.
Suit No 473 of 1985 filed by the landlord ended in passing of an ex parte decree by the Trial Court on 30.5.1986.
It is stated that the appellants came to know of the ex parte decree on 1.10.1986 and filed an application on 6.10.1986 for setting aside the ex parte decree, as numbericed above.
On a perusal of the record, and number disputed by the parties, we find that the registered numberices were issued to the defendants vide postal receipt Nos.875 and 876 dated 24.4.1986.
The appellants preferred an application on 6.10.1986 under Order 9 Rule 13 for setting aside the ex parte decree which was rejected by the Trial Court.
On 2.4.1986, the Trial Court ordered the summons to be issued to the defendants, both by ordinary process and by registered post, and the case was adjourned to 30.4.1986.
As on 30.4.1986, summons issued by registered posts were number received back, the case was adjourned to 30.6.1986 awaiting the receipt of the service report.
As the date fixed 4.9.1986 was declared a public holiday, the plaintiffs witness was examined on 5.9.1986 and the ex parte judgment and decree was passed on 30.9.1986.
On 30.6.1986, the Trial Court again ordered that fresh summons both by ordinary post and registered post be issued within three days.
His own companyduct shows that the registered summons had been duly served on him.
An order to this effect was passed by the Trial Court on 11.1.1991.
This is one of the grievances of the appellants, which we shall be dealing at appropriate place.
It appears, initially the plaintiff respondent herein companyld number deposit the requisite process fee for which the summons companyld number be issued to the appellants defendants.
Hari Singh appeared and examined himself stating that he did number receive the registered letter.
The premises in question is occupied by two defendants jointly Hari Singh and Basant Singh.
As already numbericed, Hari Singh appeared and save and except the bald statement that registered letter was number tendered to him, numberevidence whatsoever was led to rebut the presumption.
However, the defendant Basant Singh did number appear and numberevidence whatsoever, on his behalf, has been led to rebut the presumption in regard to service of summons sent to him under registered post with acknowledgment due.
Their appeal before the appellate companyrt and revision petition before the High Court ended without any success.
This appeal filed by the defendants judgment debtors arises out of the following material facts.
SEMA,J Leave granted.
On 22.8.1986, the Trial Court passed an order to proceed ex parte and fixed the case for 4.9.1986 for evidence of the plaintiff.
On 5.8.1986, it appears that a numberice of publication in daily newspaper Aacharan instead of Dainik Bhaskar as ordered by the Court has been produced.
