2007 (3) TMI 801 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Service of summons and substituted service.
2. Setting aside ex-parte order.
3. Compliance with procedural rules under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Summary:

1. Service of Summons and Substituted Service:
The appellant, Smt. Renu Sharma, was the defendant in Suit-CS(OS) No. 898/2003 filed by M/s. Titan Industries Ltd. for recovery of goods and damages. The appellant could not be served by ordinary process and was served by publication in the newspaper 'The Statesman' and was proceeded ex-parte vide Order dated 23rd April, 2004. The learned Single Judge rejected the appellant's application under Order IX, Rule 7 of the Code, holding that three attempts were made to serve notice upon the appellant by registered post and ordinary process but without success. The reports of the process server and postal authorities indicated that the appellant was avoiding service, justifying substituted service through publication.

2. Setting Aside Ex-Parte Order:
The appellant moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte Order on 2nd June, 2006, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The High Court, upon review, found that the process server and postal authorities failed to meet the appellant or any adult male member of her family personally. The reports lacked specific findings required under Order V, Rule 15 of the Code, and the process server did not record the time of service attempts. The Court noted that the appellant had met with the respondent in May 2004 but was not informed of the suit, raising doubts about the fairness of the proceedings.

3. Compliance with Procedural Rules:
The Court emphasized the importance of personal service of summons as per Order V, Rule 12 of the Code. The process server's failure to meet the appellant or any adult male member of her family and the lack of proper documentation in the service reports were critical issues. The Court highlighted that procedural law aims to advance justice and should not obstruct a party from presenting their case. The Court decided to set aside the ex-parte order to ensure substantial justice, subject to the appellant paying costs of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the ex-parte order dated 23rd April, 2004, and directed the appellant to pay costs of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent. The appellant was instructed to file a written statement within three weeks, and the matter was listed for compliance and payment of costs on 17th April, 2007. The Court stressed the need for a fair opportunity for both parties to present their cases, adhering to principles of natural justice.