In Brief
A property owner (Respondent No.1) was sued for recovery of part-sale consideration. Though served by registered post (refusal), he did not appear and an ex-parte decree was passed in 1997. When execution began, he was served again in April 2000 (duly acknowledged), but took no action. When the property was put to auction in December 2000, only then did he file an application to set aside the decree. The High Court set it aside, allowing him to defend on merits. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding that a defendant who allows the property to be auctioned without timely objection cannot claim relief. Service was valid; lack of vigilance disentitles him from setting aside the decree. Appeal allowed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.