On 6th Baisakh 1987 a suit for the recovery of Rs. 975 was brought against Des Raj and his three brothers in the court of the Munsiff Jammu. Desraj did not appear and so an ex parte decree was passed against him on 15th Har 1988. On 28th Assuj 1990 the execution of the decree was taken out on 22nd Har 1991 that is more than three years after the passing of the ex parte decree Desraj applied for the setting aside of the ex parte decree passed against him. This application was rejected. The defendant then filed an appeal in the court of the District Judge Jammu but the appeal was dismissed. Desraj has now come in revision to this court.

It is clear from the record that everything that was possible for the trial court to secure the service of the applicant was done but the applicant persisted in evading service and deliberately refrained from attending the court. The defendant applicant is employed in a firm in Cawnpore and repeated summonses were sent to his address in Cawnpore butt he applicant always managed to evade service of these summonses. At first ordinary summonses were sent but they were received back unserved on one excuse or another. Some time it was stated that the Mohalla in which Desraj lives was not mentioned while at another time it was stated that the applicant had gone out on tour and such like excuses were made. When these ordinary summonses could not be served the trial court sent a registered notice to the applicant. On the envelope of that registered notice it was first reported that the addressee could not be found but subsequently on 5th November 1930 it was reported that the applicant refused to take delivery of the letter. After that a notice in regard to the case was published in a paper published outside the State called Karam Vir. Similarly after the passing of the ex parte decree the executing court also did its best to inform the applicant of the proceedings that were being taken against the applicant. But it was all of no avail. It is also in evidence that the applicant came to Jammu during the pendency of the suit as well as of the execution proceedings and it cannot be believed that all the time the applicant remained totally ignorant of these proceedings. Besides three brothers of the applicant were also involved in the litigation and it cannot be assumed that the applicant was not informed by any of his brothers about the pendency of the suit and the execution proceedings

In these circumstances it is clear that the applicant deliberately disregarded the process of the court and so his application has been rightly rejected by the lower courts. The revision application is dismissed with costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document