Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 216 (RAJ)

Snehlata v. Aditya Birla Novo Ltd.

2012-01-24

VINEET KOTHARI

body2012
JUDGMENT : Dr. Vineet Kothari, J. By the impugned order dated 10.12.2010 passed by the learned Additional Dist. Judge No.3, Jodhpur in Civil Misc. Case No.14/2010, the learned court below has allowed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code filed by the defendant - respondent and has set aside the exparte decree in the suit. 2. The learned Court below has found that summons of trial Court were not served on the defendant-company properly and only an AD receipt of summons allegedly sent by registered AD post were produced which did not bear any seal and signature of authorised person of the Company and therefore, the exparte decree was liable to be set aside and the suit was restored for trial on merits. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have approached this Court by way of present revision petition. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon going through the reasons assigned by the Court below for allowing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code, this Court is satisfied that the Court below had sufficient reason to allow the said application and restore the suit for trial on merits. 5. Consequently, no interference is called for in the present revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court as well as opposite party forthwith.