AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 293 wordsPrakash Krishna,J.
The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 912008 passed by the court below in misc. appeal no. 127 of 2006 which arose out of proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. This is plaintiff''s writ petition. The plaintiff instituted suit no. 16 of 1994 for cancellation of the sale date dated 17111986. In the said suit, notices were served on the defendants by publication. As none turned up, the suit was decreed exparte by the order dated 1531997. Thereafter, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the exparte decree was filed by the defendants of the suit which was rejected by the trial court, but on appeal, it has been allowed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defendants were very well served with the summons and notices and as such, there was no justification for the appellate court to recall the exparte decree and restore the suit to its original number.
On careful consideration of the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit therein. It is not in dispute that the service of notice was effected through publication which is considered to be a weekest mode of service. Apart from the above, an opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the defendants by restoring the suit to its original number. It is not a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. However, it is provided that the trial court will do good by deciding the suit expeditously preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order, provided the parties cooperate.