IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the necessity of effective service of summons and adherence to procedural mandates in civil proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

1. Heard Ms. M. Hazarika, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. S. Newar, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Mr. B.M. Deka, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. The brief facts requisite for the purpose of adjudication of the issues arising in the present proceeding, is noticed as under:

The respondent, herein, as plaintiff, had instituted Money Suit No. 39/2020 before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), West Siang District, Aalo, praying for recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,64,02,416/- from the defendants, therein, including the appellant, herein, and one another.

The learned trial Court after having issued notices in the said Money Suit No. 39/2020 to the defendants, therein, and the defendants not having entered appearance; proceeded vide order, dated 17.02.2021, to require the respondent, herein, to publish the notices in any national Newspapers for appearance of the defendants. Accordingly, it is seen that the respondent, herein, had published the notices in 3 Newspapers, namely, “Sentinel” published from Guwahati and Dibrugarh “Dainik Assam” published from Assam and “Echo of Arunachal” published from Arunachal Pradesh. The notices in the said Newspapers were published on 26.02.2021.

The defendants, including the present appellant, having not appeared in the proceeding of Money Suit No. 39/2020, even after publication of the notices in the aforesaid Newspapers; the learned trial Court proceeded vide order, dated 31.05.2021, to direct that the proceeding of Money Suit No. 39/2020, would proceed ex-parte against the defendants, therein, including the present appellant, under Order IX Rule 6(1)(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Accordingly, the proceeding in Money Suit No. 39/2020 having proceeded against the appellant, herein, ex-parte, on conclusion; the learned trial Court vide judgment & order, dated 22.10.2021, proceeded to allow the same directing that the respondent No. 5, herein, is entitled to recover of a sum of Rs. 1,72,07,368.5/- from the defendants, therein, along with an interest of 6% p.a. on the said amount from the date of passing of the decree till final realization of the same.

It is seen that in terms of the said judgment, a decree was also drawn in the matter. The decreed amount having not been recovered; the respondent, herein, proceeded to institute an execution petition being E.P. No. 05/2023 before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), West Siang District, Aalo.

The notices in the said execution petition being received by the appellant, herein, he entered appearance in the proceeding and also filed an application registered as Misc. Case No. 12/2023 in Money Suit No. 39/2020 under the provisions of Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying for setting aside of the ex-parte judgment, dated 22.10.2023.

The learned trial Court on consideration of Misc. Case No. 12/2023, was pleased vide order, dated 30.06.2023, to dismiss the said misc. case holding that the appellant, herein, had not brought on record any plausible justification for not appearing and participating in the proceeding of Money Suit No. 39/2020.

3. Being aggrieved, the appellant, herein, has instituted the present proceeding before this Court.

4. Ms. Hazarika, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, herein, has, at the outset, submitted that the learned trial Court while considering Misc. Case No. 12/2023, had not dealt with the issues arising therein in accordance with the provisions contained in this connection in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

5. Ms. Hazarika, learned senior counsel, by taking this Court through the orders passed in Money Suit No. 39/2020, leading to the issuance of the order, dated 31.05.2021, wherein, the said Money Suit No. 39/2020 was directed to proceed ex-parte against the appellant, herein, has contended that the learned trial Court before proceeding to direct the