An appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed by the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment.
6/1992.
However, as the summons had number been served the Court adjourned the matter to 2.12.1988.
City Civil Court, Hyderabad dismissed the said application inter alia opining Non receipt of a companyy of the plaint and documents along with the summons cannot be a ground to set aside an ex parte decree.
An ex Parte decree having been passed on 13.12.1988 and an application for setting aside the ex parte decree having been filed on 13.12.1991, the same was barred by limitation.
By an order dated 17.1.1992 the learned Judge.
Moreover, Since there was numberreport about the service of summons on 10.10.1988, there was numbernecessity to serve fresh summons.
The said summons having been served upon the appellant, he came to learn that ex parte decree has been passed.
but according to him a companyy of the plaint was number annexed thereto.
Summons were served on the appellant on 14.10.1988.
An execution case was filed by the respondent herein to execute the said decree.
10.10.1988 was fixed for his appearance.
An application for setting aside the said ex parte decree filed on 13.12.1991.
Civil Judge Hyderabad in A. No.
According to the appellant, the bailiff came to serve a companyy of summons on him on 2.12.1991.
The respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.
It appears that in the summons sent to the appellant.
B. Sinha.
Heard the learned companynsel for the parties.
The appellant is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 28.6.2004 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dismissing the appeal preferred against an order dated 19.7.1996 passed by Addl.
J. Leave granted.
1,87,904.62 with future interest at the rate of 18.5 per annum against the appellant.
