MAHENDRA BHUSHAN, J.—This is defendants Misc. appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, refusing to set aside the ex-parte decree passed against him by the learned trial court on March 13, 1977.

2. The facts so far as they are relevant for the disposal of this appeal now may be set out in brief:

3. One Mulkraj, respondent No. 1, filed a suit for eviction against the appellant Vasudeo and his father Naraindas relating to a house, plot No. 579, situated in Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur. Summonses in the suit for the appellant as well as his father Narain Das were issued more than once by the ordinary process, but the same were returned by the Process Server as unserved. It was, therefore, directed by the court that the summonses be sent by ordinary process as well as by registered post. The summonses by registered post for November 22, 1974 for the appellant and respondent No. 2 were sent. The registered envelop meant for Narain Das respondent No. 2 was received with endorsement (Refused) of the Postman whereas registered envelop meant for the appellant was received by an inmate of the house. The Court treating the service on the appellant as complete made an order on February 18, 1976 that suit be heard ex-parte against the appellant. Thereafter the suit was tried in the presence of Naraindas and after trial the suit for ejectment on the ground of default under section 13(l)(a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act. 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was decreed against Naraindas after contest and against the appellant as ex-parte.

4. An application under Order 9 Rule 13 C. P. C. was filed by the appellant in the trial court on May 13, 1977 for setting aside the ex-parte decree against him on the ground that he had not been duly served and came to know about the passing of the decree against him through D. S. Baxi and Lotumal Girdhani on May 12, 1977 and after getting the file inspected through his counsel, filed the application on May 13, 1977. As such the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree was within limitation under Article 123 of the Limitation Act. The application was contested on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 on both the grounds and the learned trial court after making an inquiry, dismissed the application of the appellant.

5. Mr. Pagaria, learned Advocate for the appellant has contended that the service by registered post cannot be said to be due service on the appellant because the acknowledgement of the registered letter is neither signed by the appellant nor by any member of his family and as such the bare statement of the appellant that Ex. 1 acknowledgement is not signed by him or any body on his behalf is sufficient to rebut the presumption which arises under Section 114 illustration (g) of the Law of Evidence as well as under Sec. 27 of the General Clauses Act. He submits that once the appellant examined himself, it was necessary for respondent No. 1 to examine the Postman in order to prove that the registered envelop was tendered either to the appellant or to some body at his house and the same was received and in token thereof Ex. 1, the acknowledgement was signed. Because the Postman has not been examined, the learned trial court should have held that the appellant was not served and as such should have set aside the ex-parte decree. Mr. Agarwal, learned Advocate for the respondent on the other hand contends that a bald statement of the addressee that the registered envelop was not tendered to him and that the acknowledgement which is purported to be signed by some one on his behalf is not so signed, alone is not sufficient to rebut the presumption which arises in case of postal article in view of section 114 illustration (f) and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. According to learned Advocate in the facts and circumstances of this case apart from the bald statement of the appellant, who is interested in denying the service, there sh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document