Dave, J.—Both these revision applications noted above arise out of the same order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Churu, dated 3.9.55 and therefore they are disposed of together.

2. The facts giving rise to these applications are that Gordhan plaintiff filed a suit for sale of mortgaged property valued at Rs. 4750/-in the court of the Civil Judge, Churu, on l9.1.52, against three persons namely, Shri Niwas and Banarsilal, sons of Ghasi Ram and Mst. Mani Devi widow of Ram Kumar. An ex parte preliminary decree was passed against the said defendants by the learned Civil Judge, Churu, on 19.5.52. Thereafter, a final decree was also passed on 17.3.53. The plaintiff, decree holder took out execution of the decree. The mortgaged property was put to auction and it was purchased by the decree holder himself. Thereafter, on 7.7.54 an application was presented by defendants Shri Niwas and Banarsilal for setting aside the ex parte decree. It was stated in the application that they were never served with summonses and the ex parte proceedings taken against them were therefore illegal. It was further stated that they had come to know of the decree on 17.6.54 and that the application was therefore within time computed from the date of their knowledge. It was prayed that the ex parte decree should be set aside. This application was contested by the plaintiff on the ground that there was a proper substituted service on the said two defendants, that they had come to know of the decree much earlier than 17.6.54, that during the course of the execution proceedings, the judgment debtors had started negotiations through Kedarnath Bajaj for paying up the decretal amount by instalments, that they had therefore knowledge of the decree and their application was time barred.

3. The trial court thereupon framed two issues and after recording some evidence came to the conclusion that the defendants were not duly served, that they had come to know of the decree on 17.6.54 and therefore their application for setting aside the ex parte decree was presented within the period of limitation. The learned Civil Judge therefore allowed the defendants application and set aside the ex parte decree on payment of costs by the defendants to the plaintiff. It is against this order dated 3.9.55 that both the parties have filed revision applications.

4. Revision application No. 252 has been filed by the plaintiff. His learned counsel has urged that the trial court has committed material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in coming to the conclusion that the defendants were duly served before ex parte proceedings were ordered against them. It is further urged that at any rate, the defendants had knowledge about the decree long before 17.6.54 and that the trial court has committed irregularity in relying upon the mere affidavit of the defendants and basing its conclusion on no evidence.

5. Revision application No. 250 has been filed by the defendants and their learned counsel has urged that the trial court ought not to have ordered his clients to pay costs to the plaintiff. It is contended that the court had came to a definite conclusion that they were not duly served before ex parte proceedings were started against them and therefore they could not be rightly saddled with costs. It is obvious that if the revision application of the plaintiffs succeeds, the revision application filed by the defendants cannot stand and therefore it would be proper to decide the plaintiffs application first.

6. It is clear from what has been stated above that two points which arise for determination are as follows:—

(1) Whether the defendants were duly served before ex parte proceedings were ordered against them on 2.3.52?

(2) Whether the defendants had knowledge of the decree on 17.6.54 and their application was within time?

7. Regarding the first point it has been pointed out by petitioners learned counsel that summonses to the defendants were ordered to be issued on 16.2.52 for their

Click Here to Read the rest of this document