THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P No.3666 of 2010 Date:29.10.2010 Between: Polu Jayarami Reddy. ……….. Petitioner (Respondent/Plaintiff) And Atluru Sarath Babu. ……. Respondent (Petitioner/Defendant) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P No.3666 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the decretal order dated 23.7.2010 passed in I.A.No.17 of 2008 in O.S.No.15 of 2000 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Udayagiri, Sri Potti Sreeramulu (SPSR) Nellore District. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the original suit. The respondent herein is the sole defendant in the said suit. The petitioner herein filed a suit for recovery of money and the respondent herein was set exparte on 29.8.2001 and subsequently the suit was decreed exparte on 5.9.2001. Then the respondent herein filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 read with Section 151 C.P.C to set aside the exparte decree dated 5.9.2001, mainly contending, inter alia that he is residing at Hospet of Karnataka State since 1999 and that the petitioner who is the plaintiff is well aware of his correct address and in spite of that incorrect address, as if the respondent herein is residing at Kavali at D.No.10-49/74B, was given. As seen from the record, it appears that since the summons were not served on the respondent herein, the petitioner herein filed an I.A in the suit and as well as in E.P and substitute service was ordered and a notice in a local paper Vishwachandra Telugu Daily was published and in spite of the same the respondent herein was called absent and he was set exparte. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent avoided to receive summons and therefore substitute service was ordered and that there is no procedural irregularity in setting aside the defendant exparte and the lower Court did not consider the conduct of the respondent and subsequent sale of the property. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Court below, having considered the entire material and also fraud played by the petitioner, allowed the application filed by the respondent herein and set aside the exparte order. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the order impugned is liable to be set aside. Admittedly, the petitioner herein, has shown the address of the respondent as residing at Kavali and summons were sent to Kavali address. It is also clear that no summons were served on the respondent herein and the summons were affixed to the door of the respondent at Kavali on the ground that he had been to Madras. It has to be seen that subsequently the summons sent to the respondent herein were returned with an endorsement that he was not residing in the given address. The lower Court, considering the Exs.P1 is the residential certificate issued by City Municipality, Hospet, dated 07.11.2008 and Ex.P2 is the Election Identity Card dated 29.8.2002 issued by the Election Commission of India and other circumstances, came to the conclusion that the respondent was residing at Hospet, Karnataka State and holding that there was no proper service of summons on respondent, set aside the exparte decree by impugned orders. Moreover by directing to the respondent herein to deposit 3/4th of the decretal amount, the lower Court tried to safe guard the interest of the petitioner herein also. It is always better, if the matters are disposed of on merits, rather than on technicalities, both the parties should have an opportunity to put forth their case and to adduce the evidence in support of their claims and contentions. In the circumstances, I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Lower Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, no order as to costs. ______________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar Date:29.10.2010 mrb