9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Setting aside an ex parte decree based on irregularities in the service of summons. Analysis: The appellant filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C., contending that the summons of the suit were not served upon him properly, and he had no knowledge of the proceedings. The trial Court rejected the application, finding no sufficient cause for the defendant's absence during the hearing. The appellant argued that the trial Court's order was illegal and contrary to the provisions of Order 5, Rule 20, C.P.C., as it did not record its satisfaction for applying substituted service. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the summons were issued thrice and returned unserved due to incomplete address, justifying the substituted service. The High Court noted that the trial Court failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Order 5, Rule 20 by not recording its satisfaction and not ordering the affixture of the summons in a conspicuous place in the Court-house. The Court emphasized that both the service and the order directing substituted service must be in accordance with the law. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, directing the trial Court to restore the suit and dispose of it within six months from the date of appearance of the parties. The High Court analyzed Order 5, Rule 20(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, which requires the Court to be satisfied that the defendant is avoiding service or that the summons cannot be served in the ordinary way before ordering substituted service. The Court found that the trial Court failed to record its satisfaction before allowing service by publication in a newspaper. Additionally, the trial Court did not order the affixture of the summons in a conspicuous place in the Court-house, as mandated by law. The High Court highlighted that compliance with procedural requirements is essential for valid service and upheld that the trial Court erred in rejecting the application to set aside the ex parte decree. The High Court's decision was based on the principle that both the service itself and the order directing substituted service must adhere to legal provisions to be considered valid. Consequently, the High Court directed the trial Court to expedite the proceedings and dispose of the suit within six months from the appearance of the parties. In conclusion, the High Court's judgment focused on the procedural irregularities in the service of summons and the subsequent order for substituted service. The Court emphasized the importance of complying with the requirements of Order 5, Rule 20, C.P.C., regarding recording satisfaction and affixing summons in the Court-house for valid substituted service. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial Court's decision and instructing the trial Court to expedite the suit proceedings within a specified timeframe. The judgment underscored the significance of procedural adherence in legal proceedings to ensure fairness and justice for all parties involved.
|
