9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Writ petition filed for eviction from premises decreed by Civil Court. 2. Application for restoration of first appeal rejected by First Appellate Court. 3. Petitioner's application for substituted service not allowed. 4. Interpretation of Order 5, Rule 20 of the CPC regarding substituted service. 5. Abuse of the court process by filing frivolous applications. Issue 1: The writ petition was filed seeking relief from eviction from premises as decreed by the Civil Court. The petitioner's first appeal was dismissed in default, and subsequent attempts for restoration were made. The High Court allowed the writ petition, restoring the first appeal, but challenges arose during the process of serving notices to respondents in the first appeal. Issue 2: The application for restoration of the first appeal was rejected by the First Appellate Court, leading to a series of attempts to serve notices to the respondents. The petitioner faced challenges in ensuring proper service to all parties involved, leading to delays and procedural complications. Issue 3: The petitioner sought to serve unserved respondents in the first appeal through substituted service, but the appellate Court directed notice by registered post instead of publication in local newspapers. The petitioner's grievance regarding the rejection of the application for substituted service was raised, questioning the procedural requirements and circumstances for such service. Issue 4: The judgment delves into the interpretation of Order 5, Rule 20 of the CPC concerning substituted service. It emphasizes that substituted service is permissible only when the Court is fully satisfied that ordinary service is not feasible, cautioning against parties requesting substituted service without valid reasons recorded by the Court. Issue 5: The Court scrutinized the petitioner's application for substituted service, concluding that it could not be entertained. It criticized the petitioner's approach, labeling it as an attempt to misuse the legal process and waste the Court's time. Citing precedents, the Court highlighted the importance of preventing abuse of the legal system by frivolous applications and reiterated the need for litigants to respect the judicial process. In conclusion, the judgment dismissed the writ petition as an abuse of the court process, imposing a cost on the petitioner. The Court emphasized the seriousness of filing frivolous petitions and cited Supreme Court decisions to underscore the importance of respecting the judicial system. The order directed the recovery of costs from the petitioner and highlighted the consequences of misusing legal remedies.
|
