Point of Law: Section 27 gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has been effected when it is sent to correct address by registered post.

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“A. It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed,

B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction order may kindly be issued and allow the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC (Annexure-4) may kindly be allowed and the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2019 may kindly be set aside.

C. By an appropriate writ order direction may kindly be issued and the order dated 03.08.2019 (Annexure-6) as well as the order dated 09.12.2019 (Annexure-8) passed by the learned court below in civil Misc. Case No.22/2019 and Civil Appeal Order No.26/2019 LR’s of Laxman Ram & Anr. vs. Smt. Babli may kindly be quashed and set aside.

D. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem it just and proper in the facts and the circumstances of the case may kindly be issued.

E. Costs of this writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioners.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioners, are that the respondent (plaintiff) filed a civil suit, before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Pali, against the petitioners (defendants) for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,09,000/-; whereupon, the learned Court below issued the summons, and thereafter, since no one appeared on behalf of the present petitioners (defendants) despite service, therefore, the learned Court below vide judgment and decree dated 12.03.2019 decreed the said suit, ex parte, against the present petitioners (defendants).

2.1. Thereafter, the respondent (plaintiff) filed an execution application and the learned Executing Court issued the recovery process against the present petitioners. The present petitioners filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 12.03.2019. the learned Court below vide the impugned order dated 03.08.2019 rejected the said application; whereupon, the present petitioners (defendants) filed an appeal, against the impugned order dated 03.08.2019 under Section 104 CPC before the Court of learned District Judge, Pali, but the said appeal was also dismissed vide the impugned order dated 09.12.2019 dismissed the said appeal. Hence, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the aforementioned suit was registered on 08.08.2018, and on that date, ordered issuance of summons for 10.09.2018; despite the fact that no proper service of summons was effected upon the petitioners (defendants), the learned Court below on 10.09.2018, drew an order-sheet to the effect that the summons have been received unserved, and directed the respondent (plaintiff) to file fresh PF & summons, while fixing the next date as 15.10.2018; therefore, as per learned counsel, the learned Court below did not properly examine the material available on record before it, while decreeing the suit ex-parte against the petitioners (defendants).

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that according to Exhibits 25 to 28 makes it clear that the summons, in envelopes, were sent by an Advocate and not by the learned Court below, and also the said envelopes were not having any connection with the summons sent by the learned Court below, in the aforementioned suit.

3.2 He also submitted that the process server has made a report to the effect that on the relevant date, the house was found to be closed, which cannot be termed as refusal of the service, in absence of any specific report in that regard.

3.3 Learned counsel also submitted that on 02.10.2016 19.10.2016, the respondent (plaintiff) furnished an affidavit and receipt to the effect that she has received an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the petitioners (defendants).

3.4 Learned counsel thus submitted that in view of the aforesaid backdrop, the impugned orders passed by t