1. Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 read with Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) has been filed against the Judgment dated 02.04.2026 of learned District Judge, who, vide the impugned Order has upheld the Judgment and Decree dated 03.08.2019 passed in favour of Plaintiff/Respondent in the sum of Rs.2,11,065/- and also the Order dated 15.03.2024 whereby the learned Civil Judge had dismissed the Application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.

2. The Plaintiff/Respondent had filed Suit No. 152/2016 for recovery of Rs.2,11,065/- along with pendent lite and future interest.

3. The facts in brief are that the Defendant had taken goods relating to swimming pool, from the Plaintiff, on 06.07.2017 for Rs.2,00,065/- including GST, with a promise to make the payment within 10 days and in case, the Appellant got late, he undertook to pay interest @ 24% p.a.

4. The Defendant however, failed to make the payment. Thereafter, the parties entered into a Written Agreement dated 04.09.2018 whereby the Defendant agreed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- in 10 EMIs. However, he failed to abide by the terms of the Agreement. A Legal Notice dated 10.12.2018 was served upon the Defendant, despite which no money was paid.

5. The Plaintiff, thus filed the Suit for recovery of Rs.2,11,065/- along with pendent lite and future interest.

6. The summons were duly served upon the Defendant on 26.02.2019, but none appeared and Defendant was proceeded ex parte on 27.04.2019.

7. The Plaintiff in support of his case, examined himself as PW1 and proved the documents Ex. PW1/1 to PW1/3.

8. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge after hearing the arguments, concluded that the unrebutted testimony of the Plaintiff proved that the goods were supplied to the Defendant vide Bill of Exchange Mark C and PW1/2 and that there was an outstanding amount of Rs.2,11,065/- which the Plaintiff failed to pay, despite service of Legal Notice. It was also observed that the transaction between the parties stood fortified by the hand-written copy of the Undertaking dated 31.08.2018 Ex.PW1/2 and the Written Settlement Agreement Ex.PW1/3.

9. The Suit of the Plaintiff was consequently decreed in the sum of Rs.2,11,065/- including GST, in the sum of Rs.11,065/-, along with pendant lite and future interest @ 9% p.a. till the date of recovery.

10. The Defendant/Appellant vide M-STJ 38/20 (before the learned ASCJ) filed an Application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC, to challenge the ex parte Decree dated 03.08.2019, it was claimed that he had never been served with the summons and sought setting aside of the ex parte Judgment.

11. However, the learned JSCC vide the judgment dated 15.03.2024, held that there were no circumstances proven to establish that the Defendant had not been served. Consequently, the Application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was dismissed vide Order dated 15.03.2024.

12. The Defendant thereafter filed RCA DJ 23/24 to comprehensively challenge the Order dated 15.03.2024 dismissing the Application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and against Order dated 03.08.2019 whereby the Suit of the Respondent was decreed ex parte.

13. The learned District Judge considered the contentions raised under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and held that the summons had been sent to the address of the Defendant, which had not been disputed. Though, the service had been affected through the wife, but the Appellant claimed that the signatures of his wife had been forged. However, there was no cogent evidence in this regard, nor any complaint filed in regard to the alleged forgery.

14. It was also noted that, though initially the Suit was filed under Order XXXVII, and on the non-appearance of the Appellant, despite due service, he was proceeded ex parte on 27.04.2019, instead of passing a decree straight under Order XXXVII CPC.

15. In fact, the Suit was converted to an Ordinary Suit and the evidence of the Plaintiff was recorded, before passing the ex parte decree.

16. The Defendant never