Piara Singh vs Amrik Singh Lyalpuri
1993 Latest Caselaw 222 Del

JUDGMENT

Usha Mehra, J.

(1) The revision petitioner, Shri Piara Singh hasassailed the order of Additional District Judge dated 20/10/1992, pursuance to which his application filed under Order 37 Rule 3(7) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called the 'C.P.C.') was dismissed and the suit was decreed against him.

(2) The admitted facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 52.550.00 under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code against the present petitioner. Summons for appearance were issued by registered post as well as by ordinary process on 26/10/1990. The service by registered cover was effected for the date of hearing dated 6/02/1991. Since the present petitioner defendant before the Trial Court did not enter appearance therefore the case was listed for further proceedings on 11thMarch/February 1991. The petitioner filed an application under Order 37Rule 3(7) C P.C. on 19/03/1991 on the ground that he was told telephonically by the decree holder that a decree against him has been passed on 11/03/1991. On receiving this information, he contacted the Counsel and inspected the file and found that his signatures had been forged on theA.D. card purporting to have been received by him and that in fact he had never received any summons as he had paralytic attack on 6/09/1990 and was under the treatment. Along with the application he annexed certain medical certificates also. This application was contested and the learned A.D.J. after going through the record disbelieved the contention of the petitioner and dismissed big application. Since he had not put in appearance within 10 days of the service, decree was passed against him. The ground now taken by the petitioner is that the Trial Court ought to have taken into consideration that the ordinary summons had not come back and that the registered Cover shows fabricated signatures, therefore the petitioner ought to have been given time to prove the same. His medical certificates have also not been properly appreciated by the Court.

(3) I have heard the arguments and perused the record. The perusal of the Trial Court record shows that the A.D. card bears the signatures of one Piara Singh. The presumption under law is that registered notice sent if not returned back within 30 days ought to have been delivered to the addressee. Therefore in view of this provision of the Civil Procedure Code it cannot be said that the Trial Court wrongly came to the conclusion that the petitioner was duly served by registered post with summons. Moreover, the A.D. card was received back with the signatures purported to have been signed by PiaraSingh. The Trial Court also rightly observed that if he was a paralytic patient and was bed ridden how could be appear before the private doctor at Ashok Vihar on 18/03/1991 ? The application before the Trial Court under Order 37 Rule 3(7) Civil Procedure Code was filed on 19th March, 1991 indicating that the petitioner was confined to bed. The medical certificate belies this version of the petitioner. Therefore the observation of the Trial Court cannot be said to be wrong The law permits that the service of summons should be by ordinary as well as by registered post and it was not necessary for the Trial Court to wait for the service of summons by ordinary process particularly when the A.D card had been received back bearing the signatures of the addressee. No judgment in fact had been passed on 11/03/1993the Presiding Officer was on half day leave and the case was adjourned.Therefore it cannot be imagined that the decree holder will inform the judgment debtor without the passing of the decree that a decree had been passed against him. This version of the petitioner rightly did not find favor with the Trial Court and I see no-reason to interfere with the impugned order because I find no infirmity in the same. Dismissed.