SBCMA No.1293/2008 Sushil Kumar Vs. Smt. Lalita Devi & Ors. -{ 1 }- S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1293/2008 Sushil Kumar vs Smt. Lalita Devi & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : - 10.9.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.PK Sharma, for the appellant. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is aggrieved against the order passed by the Addl. District Judge, (Fast Track) No.5, Udaipur dated 6th Oct., 2007 whereby he has rejected the application filed by the appellant under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. According to learned counsel for the appellant no notice of the claim petition was served upon the appellant and the court below wrongly accepted the service of the appellant in view of the endorsement made on the acknowledgment due receipt. It is also submitted that since the notice has not been served upon the appellant, SBCMA No.1293/2008 Sushil Kumar Vs. Smt. Lalita Devi & Ors. -{ 2 }- therefore, the award dated 30th Oct., 2006 should have been set aside by the court below. It appears from the facts of the case that trial court relied upon the endorsement made on the acknowledgment due receipt and also considered the fact that the appellant's father also appeared as witness in the same case in which award was passed and appellant is seeking setting aside of the award. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the court below should have given an opportunity to the appellant to prove the fact by evidence otherwise the court should have relied upon the affidavit of the appellant. It is submitted that appellant's evidence was negatived evidence and he denied his signature over the AD. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is devoid of any force because of the reason that appellant had not requested the tribunal to lead evidence in support of his plea and assertion of fact is of no help to the appellant. The court rightly relied upon the endorsement made on the acknowledgment due receipt, which came into the court in due process. SBCMA No.1293/2008 Sushil Kumar Vs. Smt. Lalita Devi & Ors. -{ 3 }- In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-