Order.- These two appeals have been filed by the third defendant in O.S. No. 97 of 1972 on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Dindigul, against the order dismissing his applications viz., I.A. Nos. 660 and 668 of 1975, for setting aside the ex parte preliminary decree dated 31st July, 1973 and the ex parte final decree dated 11th January, 1974.

2. The respondent bank filed a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 5,76,517-85 said to be due on a mortgage from the defendants 1 to 5. The first defendant is a firm and defendants 2 to 4 are the partners and the minor 5th defendant has been admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The sixth defendant is the Official Assignee, Madras, in charge of the estate of defendants 2 to 4 who have been adjudicated as insolvents. In the suit, no personal service of summons was effected on the third defendant, but summons had been served by substituted service and by publication in “ Malai Murasu” newspaper. The 5th defendant, a minor represented by a Court-guardian, and the 6th defendant, the Official Assignee, alone appeared at the trial, and as defendants 1 to 4 remained absent, they were set ex parte and an ex parte preliminary decree came to be passed on 31st July, 1973. Subsequently final decree proceedings were initiated and in those proceedings also due notice was sent to all defendants. So far as the third defendant is concerned, he has been served by affixture and such service has been held to be sufficient. Thereafter, he was set ex parte and final decree has been passed on 11th January, 1974. There after the respondent took steps to brin the mortgaged property to sale. At the stage on 17th July, 1975 the third defendant (appellant herein) filed the said two applications for setting aside the ex parte preliminary decree as well as the ex parte final decree on the ground that he was not personally served with the summons in the suit and notice in the final decree proceedings, and that he became aware of the proceedings only on 1st July, 1975 through one Veerabadran, a friend of the appellant, who came to know about the proceedings from the publication in “ Malai Murasu”.

3. The said two applications for setting aside the ex parte preliminary decree and the final decrees were resisted by the respondent (plaintiff) on the ground that the petitioner had sufficient notice of the proceedings, but evaded summons for reasons best known to himself, that he came to know of the entire proceedings only on 1st July, 1975 was not true and that as a matter of fact, the appellant and the defendants 1, 2 and 4 had been informed by the Official Assignee and therefore they should be taken to have knowledge of the suit proceedings.

4. The Court below by a common judgsment held that a perusal of the note paper in the suit showed that after due publication made the defendants 1 to including the appellant were set ex parte, that the preliminary decree came to be passed after hearing the Court-guardian of the fifth defendant and the Official Assignee, the six defendant, that even in the final decree proceedings due notice was sent to the appellant, and other defendants that the Court after satisfying itself about the sufficiency of the notice declared the appellant ex parte, and that therefore, it cannot be stated that the appellant had no sufficient notice of the proceedings. The lower Court also took the view that the appellant purposely kept himself out of the Court for reasons best known to himself and that he cannot now complain that the plaintiff has obtained an ex parte decree fraudulently.

5. In this appeal it is contended on behalf of the appellant that admittedly he was not personally served in the suit or in the final decree proceedings, that he became aware of the proceedings only on 1st July, 1975 through a friend of his and that having regard to the huge claim made in this suit, he should in the interest of justice, be given an opportunity to put forward his defence.

6. The learned counsel for the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document