I would say the affidavit of the Fiscal filed of record is a stumbling blockto the objection taken by the respondent and there is no material whatsoeverplaced before the learned District Judge to establish that summons or thedecree was not served on the respondent. As stated above, I am at a lossas to how the learned District Judge arrived at her decision purely on thewritten submissions tendered by the respondent and I would say the ordermade by the learned District Judge is per se erroneous.
In view of the aforesaid circumstances I would hold that exceptionalcircumstances do exist for the petitioner to invoke the extraordinaryjurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly I have no hesitation in exercising theextraordinary jurisdiction of revision, for the order challenged has occasioneda failure of justice and is manifestly erroneous which goes beyond anyerror or defect or irregularity. I would say the order complained of is ofsuch a nature which shocks the conscience of this Court.
While allowing the revisionary application of the petitioner with costsfixed at Rs. 20,0001 set aside the order of the learned District Judge dated
WIMALACHANDRA, J. — / agree.
Application allowed.
Accordingly there was no evidence before the learned District Judge toreject the two affidavits. This is demonstrated by her observations in herorder which reads as follows :