Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The hyper-technical and the hyper- insensitive approach of the trial Court while dealing with an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (henceforth to be referred to as `the Code, for short) is forcing a defence to run from pillar to post. What could be easily tackied at the level of the trial Court is being transported to this court. Needlessly, this Court is being flooded day in day out with appeals against the rejection of application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code. This tide needs to be reserved, if this court is not to be overwhelmed by the rising dockets.

(2). The appellant has challenged the order dated 15.7.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Shahpura, District Jaipur whereby the learned Judge has rejected the application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code.

(3). The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff- respondent had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,20,000/- against the appellant. Vide order dated 13.4.2005, the summons were issued. Vide order dated 25.5.2005, the notices were sent through Registered A.D. According to the order-sheet dated 18.7.2005, the Registered A.D. was returned with a note indicating that the appellant had refused to accept the said notice. Thus, the service was deemed to be complete and ex-parte proceedings were commenced against the appellant. Eventually, an ex-parte judgment and decree was passed on 20.1.2006. Since the appellant came to know about the ex-parte judgment on 30.5.2006, on 21.6.2006 he immediately moved an application for getting the certified copy of the ex-parte judgment. He filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code on 24.6.2006. Since there was a delay in filing of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code, he also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, vide order dated 15.7.2006, the said application has been dismissed by the learned Judge. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

(4). Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, the learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that according to the report of the process server, no one was found at the address. Therefore, the notices were returned to the trial Court. According to the envelope of the Registered A.D., there is only a single note on the said envelope as ``N.F., which stands for the words ``Not Found. According to the learned counsel, there is no indication that someone has refused to take the notice on behalf of the appellant. Thus, notice was never served upon the appellant. Hence, he was ignorant of the fact that a proceeding was pending against him in the Court. Moreover, the observations made in the order-sheet dated 18.7.2005 that the notice was refused, such an observation is belled by the notation on the envelope of the Registered A.D., which reads ``not found Furthermore, the notice was not pasted at the conspicuous place of the resident of the appellant in the presence of two independent witnesses. Lastly, the process server was not even examined by the Court to consider the fact whether the Registered A.D. was refused and if so by whom. The learned trial Court has ample power to impose a cost on the appellant and set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree, but the learned Judge has refused to exercise the said power.

(5). On the other hand, Mr. Gaurav Gupta, the learned counsel for the respondent, has argued that the envelope of the Registered A.D. has been washed out. Therefore, notation on it is not very clear. But, there is an observation in the order-sheet dated 18.7.2005 clearly stating that the appellant had refused to accept the notice. This fact has been reflected in the order- sheet dated 18.7.2005. Thus, the service is deemed to be complete. Hence, he has supported the impugned judgment.

(6). We have heard both the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record as well as the impugned judgment.

(7). The function of the courts and reason for creation of the Judicial

Click Here to Read the rest of this document