Appeal against dismissal of Order IX Rule 13 CPC application to set aside ex parte decree. The applicant had been allowed to lead evidence but did not examine the process server or postman despite alleging manipulated service. The High Court found no illegality or perversity and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~87
RAJ KUMAR .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul, Mr. Rahul Kumar and Mr. Ashutosh Tiwari, Advs.
versus
KANAHIYA LAL AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: None. CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)
Signature Not Verified
FAO 181/2025 Page 1 of 3
Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 8.07.2025 10:44:46
Process Server or, for that matter, the concerned Postman as his witness.
“12. Perusal of record reveals that as per report of process server dated 19.11.2022, the summons were served to the defendant through his wife. As per report of process server dated 30.01.2023, it is mentioned in the report that he has reached at first floor also of the suit property and at the door he address orally to the resident who resided at first floor but the said resident closed the door. Hence, it is clear that the defendant deliberately avoided the service. Moreover, the summons posted to the defendant at his address returned back unclaimed. The defendant/applicant averred that he did not receive summons and the service of summons was manipulated by the plaintiff. Despite given opportunity the defendant has not examined the process server or post man who might have thrown the light to the truth. Non examination of material witness invites the adverse inference against the defendant/applicant. Therefore, it is presumed that the defendant was served with the summons on 19.11.2022 and he deliberately did not appear before the court. The plea is made by the defendant to show that the summons were not served upon the defendant. As far as it is concerned with the said plea, the process server or postman was the best person who could have brought the truth in front of court.”
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 8.07.2025 10:44:46
FAO 181/2025 Page 2 of 3
opportunity of adducing evidence to the applicant and the appellant herein himself is to be blamed as he did not even care to examine the concerned Process Server, on whose report he was, eventually, proceeded against ex parte.
(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE
JULY 16, 2025/ gunn/SS
Signature Not Verified
FAO 181/2025 Page 3 of 3
Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 8.07.2025 10:44:46
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside an ex parte decree, given the applicant's failure to examine the process server or postman.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Raj Kumar
Kanahiya Lal
Anr.
Manoj Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
