The court emphasized the importance of explaining every day's delay and the need to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay. It also highlighted that knowledge of the date of hearing is relevant for setting aside an exparte decree.

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.

This order shall dispose of both the applications filed with a prayer to set aside the exparte judgment and decree dated 1.7.2013 on condonation of delay.

2. Suit for recovery of Rs.15,49,770/- came to be filed by M/s P.A. Times Industries, Kasauli Road, Dharampur, the non-applicant/plaintiff, against the applicant/defendant. The defendant-Company, as per order dated 9.4.2012, in ‘B’ part of the file was served with Dasti notice by way of affixation for 13.3.2012 as its Managing Director though present, however, refused to accept the notice. The defendant, therefore, was ordered to be proceeded against exparte as per the order passed on 1.6.2012 read with order dated 9.4.2012, passed in ‘B’ part of the file.

3. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court after recording exparte evidence has decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 1.7.2013. The judgment and decree so passed has been sought to be set aside on condonation of delay.

4. The delay as occurred in filing the application, OMP No.49 of 2014, aforesaid for setting aside the exparte judgment and decree has been sought to be condoned on the ground that the applicant-defendant came to know about the exparte judgment and decree dated 1.7.2013 passed in this suit on 14.1.2014 from one Rajesh Kumar Janak, Kishore Road, Kadam Kuan, Patna Bihar, who, in turn, was informed by one Vinay Dalamia. Mr. Dalamia was informed about the exparte decree passed in the suit by one Shri J.K. Mishra, an employee of the non-applicant/Company. The delay as occurred, therefore, is stated to be neither intentional nor deliberate and allegedly occurred owing to the circumstances beyond the control of the applicant-defendant.

5. On merits, the case pleaded in the application OMP No.49 of 14 is that the applicant-defendant was never served legally and validly in the suit. He never refused to accept the service of notice. The report to this effect submitted by the Process-server is stated to be false and manipulated one. Otherwise also, the notice allegedly was affixed on the residence of the managing Director of the applicant-defendant and not in its business premises. There is no legal and valid service in terms of Order 5 Rule 2 CPC.

6. In reply filed on behalf of the non-applicant/ plaintiff, the question of maintainability of the application for setting aside the abatement has been raised. On merits, it is denied that the Managing Director of applicant-defendant has refused to accept the service. The reports Annexure P-1 and P-2 to the reply have been pressed into service in this regard. Therefore, it is submitted that no option was left except for affixation of the notice on the residential premises of the Managing Director of applicant-defendant. It is denied that the Managing Director of the applicant-defendant came to know about the decree passed in the suit on 14.1.2014. It is pointed out that the official of defendant-Company had been asking for the status of the proceedings in the suit from the employees of plaintiff-Company. Since defendant-Company was not willing to clear the dues of the non-applicant/plaintiff, it is for this reason the reports qua vacation of the rented accommodation and disconnection of electricity meter have been fabricated and falsely procured. Since the applicant-defendant refused to accept the notice, therefore, the refusal itself is to be treated as legal and valid service. The service upon the applicant is stated to be effected, in terms of the provisions contained under Order 5 Rule 2 CPC. Both applications have, therefore, been sought to be dismissed.

7. In rejoinder, the contentions to the contrary have been denied being wrong and on merits the case as set out in these applications reiterated. It is pointed out that as per reports Annexures P-1 and P-2, the service has been effected on the address of Managing Director of applicant-defendant i.e. near Sanichra Masjid, Thana Sultan Ganj, Bihar, however, as per Aadhar Card Annexure A-1,