THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.963 of 2017

ORDER :

Heard Sri C. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant as well as Sri P. Mehar Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. Perused the material available on record.

2. Challenge in this Civil Revision Petition is the order rendered by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, in I.A.No.420 of 2016 in O.S.No.101 of 2014, dated 29.11.2016.

3. The revision petitioner, who is the defendant to the suit, has filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking the Court to condone the delay of 542 days in filing petition under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the exparte decree passed in O.S.No.101 of 2014, dated 27.11.2014. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 29.11.2016. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Making his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner states that no summons was served upon the petitioner in the suit and, therefore, he could not make his appearance and after he came to know about filing of the suit and passing of exparte decree, he immediately approached the trial Court and filed an application to set aside the said exparte decree and his request was not honoured. Learned counsel further submits that by mentioning wrong residential address, the respondent/plaintiff managed the things and the summons remain unserved upon the petitioner, and thus, the petitioner was not at fault.

5. Vehemently opposing the said submission, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff states that the summons were issued and the Process Server of the Court went to the given address to serve summons, but the petitioner/defendant refused to receive summons and such a refusal amounts to sufficient service, and hence, the plea urged by the petitioner/ defendant is false.

6. In reply to the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner states that no witnesses witnessed such refusal to receive summons.

7. The main ground taken is that summons could not be served upon the petitioner as the respondent had given a wrong address.

8. The suit was filed for recovery of money. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a sale transaction between the petitioner and the respondent and that was the basis for the dispute and in proof of the residential address, a copy of the Sale Deed dated 28.05.2011 is filed. On a perusal of the said copy of Sale Deed, this Court finds that the address particulars of the petitioner are shown as under:

“R/o. H.No.2-10-873/1, Sri Venkateshwara Colony, Subedari, Hanamkonda, Warangal District.”

9. When the contents of the plaint are gone through, this Court finds that the residential particulars of the petitioner are mentioned as under:

“R/o. beside House No.2-10-873, Sri Sai Colony, Sri Sai Ganesh Plywood Shop, B.O.R.G. Upstairs, Opposite to Forest Office, Subedari, Hanamkonda, Dist: Warangal-506001.”

10. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the same address as mentioned in the plaint is mentioned in the Execution Petition also and notice was delivered upon the petitioner, who is the judgment debtor in the Execution Petition, at that address.

11. A perusal of the copy of Execution Petition in E.P.No.9 of 2016 in O.S.No.101 of 2014 reveals justification in the said submission regarding address particulars of the petitioner. A perusal of the order of the trial Court reveals that the trial Court, on verification of the docket orders and summons in the suit, found the following facts:

“5. ...... As per the report of Process Server petitioner herein was present at his house but he refused to receive summons and no witness came forward to sign. The report of K. Damodara Chary, Process Server of this Court is clear to the effect that defendant having knowledge of summons refused to receive the same. Court has set him exparte in main suit on 03.04.2014 because the endorsement ‘refusal’ amounts to de