Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The defendant No. 1 obtained at Akyab an ex parte decree upon a promissory note said to have been executed by the plaintiff at Akyab. The plaintiff had the decree set aside under Section 108 of the Civil Procedure Code, but could not appear at the hearing of the revived suit so that an ex parte decree was again passed. The result is analogous to a case in which there is an ex parte decree after actual service, of summons. The plaintiff brings the present suit on the allegation that he never went to Akyab, never received any money there from the defendant and never executed any promissory note in his favour, so that the decree was based on no cause of action and fraudulent, and praying for declarations to that effect. The lower Courts have held that the plaintiff never went to Akyab, never received any money from the' defendant No. 1 there, and never executed the promissory note so that the whole proceeding was fraudulent. It has been argued in second appeal before us that the lower Court had no jurisdiction to go into the merits of the suit in the Akyab Court, and in any case the only matter that could be investigated was whether the plaintiff had by the action of the defendant No. 1 been prevented from placing his case properly before the Akyab Court, and, secondly, that no decree should have been passed without calling for the promissory note impeached as a forgery.