( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 18. 10. 1996 whereby learned Additional district Judge rejected the petitioner s application under OR. 37r. 4 CPC seeking reversal of the ex parte judgment and decree dated 16. 11. 1995.

BRIEFLY stated facts leading to this case are that in May 1994 respondent Lakhi Ram filed a suit under the provisions of O. 37 CPC for recovery of rs. 4,12,600/- on the basis of loan agreement dated 24. 3. 1994 alleged to have been executed by petitioner/ defendant herein along with application under O. 39 Rule 1 and 2 for grant of exparte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant/ petitioner from selling, mortgaging or otherwise alienating the property bearing no. 661-1-B and 1-C situated at Ghati Road, Anand Parvat, new Delhi during the pendency of the suit. A perusal of the order sheet reveals that when the case was taken up on 31. 5. 1994, Court ordered issuance of notice of the application to the defendant for 28. 6. 1994. There was no order for issuance of summons in the suit. When the case was taken up on 28. 6. 1994, the court ordered issuance of summons of the suit under Order 37 CPC as also notice of the application under O. 39 CPC for 25. 7. 1994. On 25. 7. 1994 again fresh summons were ordered to be issued as summons/notice could not be issued because copies of documents were not furnished. Case was adjourned to 26. 8. 1994. Defendant was not served. The report on the summons was that the defendant was out of station so fresh summons were ordered to be issued for 22. 9. 1994. Again summons could not be issued as copies of the annexures were not furnished and fresh summons were ordered to be issued for 8. 11. 1994. It appears that plaintiff did not file the process fee as is clear from the endorsement "no PF" made in the margin of the order sheet dated 8. 11. 1994 by the Court staff, so fresh summons were ordered to be issued for 6. 1. 1995. Again PF was not filed. Instead the plaintiff filed an application under O. 5 Rule 20 CPC. The Court, however, ordered that fresh steps be taken for services of summons under o. 37 CPC by ordinary as well as by Registered A. D post for 7. 3. 1995. On 7. 3. 1995 Presiding Officer was on leave. The process were received back with the report that the defendant is out of station. When the case was taken up on 22. 5. 1995, fresh summons were ordered to be issued for 30. 8. 1995. On 30. 8. 1995 again fresh summons were ordered to be issued for 16. 11. 1995. However, in the meantime, on 11. 9. 1995 the case was taken up on the application under O. V Rule 20 CPC for substituted services. This application was allowed and publication was ordered to be effected in " The Times of India" Delhi region for 16. 11. 1995. Another application was filed on 28. 9. 1995 and it was ordered that publication be effected now in " Statesman". In the meantime, defendant was served by publication in "statesman" in its edition dated 21. 10. 1995. Since there was no appearance by the defendant, the decree for Rs. 4,12,600/- was passed in favour of the plaintiff under O. 37 CPC on 16. 11. 1995.

( 2 ) ON 31. 1. 1996, the petitioner/defendant filed an application un der O. 37 Rule 4 CPC for setting aside the exparte decree dated 16. 11. 1995. It was alleged in the application that petitioner/defendant was never served with the summons nor he refused to accept the summons. It was further alleged in the application that the defendant has to visit his native place at pathankot (Punjab) where his old mother resides as the defendant has to look after her. It was also stated in the application that alleged loan agreement is a fabricated document. No such alleged loan transaction ever took place. This application was opposed by the plaintiff/ respondent and after considering the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Additional District Judge rejected the application vide order dated 18. 10. 1996. Feeling aggrieved, petitione