The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.5 of 2006 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Neyyattinkara. The suit was filed by the respondent for realisation of a sum of Rupees One lakh together with interest. The suit was decreed ex-parte on 28.3.2007. On 24.3.2011, the petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.658 of 2011 to set aside the ex-parte decree. There was a delay of 1428 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree and to condone the delay, I.A.No.659 of 2011 was filed. The trial court dismissed the applications to set aside the ex-parte decree and to condone the delay. The defendant filed C.M.A.No.94 of 2011 on the file of the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram, challenging the order passed by the trial court. The appellate court dismissed the appeal. The concurrent findings of the courts below are under challenge in this revision.
2. On the side of the petitioner/defendant, PWs 1 to 4 were examined. PW1 is the defendant himself. He stated that he was not aware of the pendency of the suit and he was not served with summons. He also stated that there was no affixture of summons and he never refused notice as alleged. PW2 is the Secretary of Aryancodu Grama Panchayath. Exhibits X1 and X2 were marked through him. Exhibit X1 is the assessment register in respect of building No.API/82 while Exhibit X2 is with respect to AP VI/270. Exhibit X2 shows that the building belonged to one Gopalan while Exhibit X1 shows it belongs to one Jayis Jayakumar who is the wife of the petitioner/defendant. It was contended by the defendant that the summons was attempted to be served at the house shown in Exhibit X2 which belongs to one Gopalan. Therefore, there was no proper service of notice or affixture.
3. PWs 3 and 4 are the process servers who attempted to serve summons on the defendant on two different occasions. They attempted to serve notice on the defendant in the address shown in the plaint which is the same address shown in the applications filed by the petitioner and in the chief affidavit filed by him. The process servers stated that when they attempted to serve summons personally on the defendant, he refused to receive the same and therefore, summons was affixed at the outer door of the house.
4. The court below relied on the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 and held that the case put forward by the petitioner/defendant that he came to know of the decree only when he received notice in the Execution Petition is not correct. It is to be noted that service of notice was attempted by yet another process server on the petitioner/defendant in the Execution Petition and at that time also, he refused to receive notice and notice was affixed. The same address was shown in the Execution Petition as well.
5. On a perusal of the records and the evidence of PWs 3 and 4, the trial court took the view that summons was attempted to be served on the defendant personally. But he refused to receive summons and therefore, summons was affixed on the outer door of the house in which he was residing.
The official acts shall be deemed to be done in a proper manner unless it is shown otherwise. The trial court did not accept the evidence of the petitioner/defendant and on the materials available, it was held that he was aware of the pendency of the suit and the passing of the decree. The appellate court also concurred with the view taken by the trial court on facts.
6. The trial court relied on the decision of this Court in Dawood v. Zubaida (2010(3) KLT 89), wherein it was held that if the party who had sufficient knowledge regarding the pendency of the matter, and who had sufficient opportunity to contest the matter cannot turn around and contend that he was not aware of the proceedings since no notice was served at the place of his residence. The trial court also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Balwant Singh (Dead) v.
Jagdish Singh and others (2010(8) SCC 685), wherein it was held that though liberal construction should be made in the matter of condonation of delay, that should not be equated with doing injustice to the opposite party and a balance has to be kept in mind by the court while deciding the application.
On a perusal of the order and judgment passed by the courts below, I do not find any justification to exercise the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The revision lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
csl K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE