A. Lakshmi Narayana
B. Bala Ramaiah
The above named plaintiff submits as under:
1. The defendant is an intelligent person and is sort of a tout. He obtained a decree against the plaintiff on 24.3.1991 * parte for specific performance of a contract in Other Class Suit No of 19 in the court of. At………………………………….
2. The defendant put into execution the said decree in E.P. No…… of
19….. notice where if was served on the plaintiff by the court process server on………
3. The said decree in the aforesaid suit No.. of 19….was fraudulently obtained by the defendant by fraudulent suppression of the summons. The plaintiff did not receive summons, nor any servant of the court even went to the plaintiffs place of residence. The alleged ‘refusal’ of summons is a collusive endorsement on the writ of summons by the process server.
4. The plaintiff did not enter into any contract with the defendant for sale of his lands and the defendant’s contention in the suit was false to his knowledge.
5. That the plaintiff had no knowledge of the said suit, far less of the decree. The plaintiff came to know of the same on…. only on receipt of a notice of the E.P. aforesaid. The plaintiff gathered particulars by an Information slip attached herewith.
6. That the said decree is liable to be set aside.
The plaintiff therefore prays:
(i) For a judgment and decree setting aside the decree of the Other Class suit no…. of of this court.
(ii) Costs of suit
The plaintiff has been falsely contending that he was not served with summons. The process server obtained not only the endorsement of the plaintiff herein but also endorsement of two elders of the locality in token of proof of service. Hence, the claim of the plaintiff is deliberate falsehood.
2. The defendant submits that the plaintiff laid this suit instead of a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. and has been toying to obviate the rules of limitation.
3. The suit is barred by limitation. The suit is also not maintainable. The suit therefore is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.