Refusal to receive summons sent by registered post.

This is a petition by Sri Krishna Rice Mills of Manachanallur, Lalgudi Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District, the defendants in O.S.No. 109 of 1952, on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli, for revising and setting aside the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Tiruchirapalli, in C.M.A. No. 19 of 1954, confirming the order of the District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli, in I.A. No. 831 of 1953, dismissing the petitioner’s application, under Order 9, rule 13, Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the ex parte decree passed against them on 19th June, 1952, and dismissing the C.M.A. The suit had been filed by one Rajagopala Konar, the respondent-plaintiff, against the petitioners, for recovering Rs. 1,250 with subsequent interest and costs, the suit amount being the value of paddy sold to the petitioners. A summons was served on the petitioners regarding the earlier hearing of the suit on 28th March, 1952. It was duly affixed, but the Court held that the service was not sufficient, and ordered fresh summons, adjourning the suit to 14th June, 1952. So the affixture of the first summons becomes irrelevant for the purpose of the I.A. and C.M.A. and this C.R.P. The summons regarding the hearing on 14th June, 1952 was sent by registered post. P.W. 2 the manager of the petitioner’s mill, refused to receive it, and it was also not affixed to the premises. This service was held to be sufficient by the District Munsif erroneoulsy and ex parte decree was passed on 19th June, 1952. Execution was taken out by the respondent, and notice of the E.P. was tendered to P.W. 2 the self-same manager of the petitioners mills, on 13th August, 1952 and he returned it without accepting it. This time, the notice was affixed to the premises by R.W. 2.

The petitioner’s case was that they did not know either about the summons in the suit for the hearing on 14th June, 1952, or the notice in the E.P. and that they were not told about them by P.W.2, the manager, and that they came to know for the first time about the ex parte decree only when execution was taken out for the suit amount against them on 14th October, 1952. They forthwith deposited the entire decree amount and costs, and filed the I.A. the very next day, namely, on 15th October, 1952, for setting aside the ex parte decree.

The learned District Munsif dismissed the I.A. holding that the refusal of the summons for the hearing on 14th June, 1952, by P.W.2, the agent, would do to constitute proper service on the petitioners, and that the refusal of the E.P. notice by P.W. 2 would do to show the knowledge of the ex parte decree on the part of the petitioners on 13th August, 1952, the date of the refusal, and, so, the I.A. filed on 15th October, 1952,would not do, in fact or in law, and would also be barred by limitation. Therefore, the learned District Munsif dismissed the I.A. The petitioners took the matter in appeal.

The learned District Judge by his judgment in C.M.A. 19 of 1954 dismissed the appeal, holding that there was proper service of the summons for the hearing on 14th June, 1952, ending with the ex parte decree on 19th June, 1952. He held that P.W. 2 must have communicated to the petitioners about the refusal of the summons and E.P. notice by him. So he dismissed the appeal with costs. Hence this C.R.P.

I have perused the records and heard the learned counsel on both sides. Mr. A.V. Narayanaswami Iyer, for the petitioners, and Mr. A. Sundaram Iyer, for the plaintiff-respondent, have argued the case fully and fairly. Mr. A. V. Narayanaswami Iyer pointed out that the view taken by the learned District Munsif and the learned District Judge regarding the sufficiency of the service of the suit summons for the hearing on 14th June, 1952, ending with the ex parte decree was wrong and is proved to be wrong by the Judgment of Rajamannar, C.J., in Murugayyan Kangiar v. Marudayammal1, delivered no doubt on 5th January, 1956, after the judgments of the learned District Munsif and t