S. B. SAKRIKAR, J.

( 1 ) DEFENDANT appellant has directed this appeal against the order dated 26. 7. T999 passed by 1st Addl. District Judge, barwani, in Misc. Case No. 12/98, thereby rejecting the application filed on behalf of the appellant for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 10. 11. 1997 in Civil Case No. 5a/97 under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that respondent Motilal filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for grant of decree of divorce against the appellant in the Court of 1st Addl. District Judge, barwani. The notice of the said application was sent to the defendant-appellant by Regd. Post A/d It is stated that the notice of application sent to the appellant-defendant returned to the Court concerned through the post with the endorsement that the addressee refused to take the letter in question. On the aforesaid report, the learned Trial Court proceeded ex-pa rte against the appellant and on the basis of the evidence of the respondent an ex parte decree of divorce was passed against the appellant uide order dated 10. 11. 1997 in Civil suit No. 5a/97. It is also the case of the appellant that on getting the information of the aforesaid ex parte decree, on 9. 7. 1998, she filed an application before the Trial Court under Order 9, Rule 13, C. P. C. for setting aside the said decree, mainly on the ground that the notice of the original application was not refused and properly served on the appellant. The application was resisted on behalf of the respondent. On appreciation of the evidence recorded on the petition, the learned Trial court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant under Order 9, Rule 13 C. P. C. and refused to set-aside the decree passed ex-pa rte.

( 3 ) THE only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned trial Court under Section 114 of the Evidence act held that the notice of the original application is validly served on the appellant. In this respect, learned Counsel submitted that from the statement of the appellant recorded on the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13, C. P. C. the presumption stands rebu'tted. As such, the learned Trial Court should have allowed the application of the appellant filed under Order 9, Rule 13 C. P. C.

( 4 ) AS against this, learned Counsel for respondent supported the impugned order of the Trial Court and submitted that the Court has rightly rejected. he application filed by the appellant for setting aside the ex parte decree passed, in Civil Case No. 5a/97.

( 5 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for parties and considering the submissions of the learned Counsel for parties, I am of the opinion that the contention of the learned Counsel for appellant deserves to be accepted in view of the facts and the circumstances of the rase on the hand.

( 6 ) IT is true that the notice of the original application sent to the appeltent-defendnat by regd. Post A/d returned to the Court with the endorsement of the Postman that the addressee refused to take the delivery of letter. It is also true that on the basis of the presumption available under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, the endorsement made by the Post-man on the envelope shall be presumed to be correct. But the presumption so arising under the provisions of Section 1. 14 of the Evidence act is rebuttabte. In this case, the appellant in her statement, recorded in connection with the application filed under Order 9, Rule 13, C. P. C. has specifically stated that she never refused to take delivery of any envelope alleged to have been given by the Postman of the concerned post Office. There is no reason available on the record to disbelieve the aforesaid statement of the appellant given before the Trial Court on oath. As such, in my considered opinion, the presumption arising under Section 114 of the Evidence Act got rebutted from the statement of the appellant recorded in connection with the application under Order 9. Rule 13

Click Here to Read the rest of this document