9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Setting aside an ex parte decree under Order 9, Rule 13 due to improper service of summons through a registered post card. Analysis: The appeal before the High Court was against the Subordinate Judge's order refusing to set aside an ex parte decree in a Money Suit. The suit involved multiple defendants, including the appellant, who was the second defendant. The first defendant, who was the elder brother and manager of the joint family, could not be personally served with summonses. The court ordered fresh service through a registered post card, which was refused by the appellant, leading to the ex parte decree against defendants 1, 2, and 3. The main issue revolved around the effectiveness of the service of summons through the registered post card. The court examined Order 5, Rule 17, which allows alternative modes of service if the defendant is avoiding service. However, the court emphasized that the post card must meet the requirements of a proper summons, including being signed by the judge or an authorized officer and sealed with the court's seal. The post card in question did not fulfill these requirements, lacking essential elements like the judge's signature or seal. The judges highlighted that mere knowledge of a suit's existence is not sufficient without proper service of summons. Even if the post card was tendered and refused by the appellant, it did not meet the legal standards of a valid summons. The court reiterated that service by post can supplement other modes but cannot replace personal service, especially when the court had doubts about the previous attempts at personal service. In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the ex parte decree against defendants 1, 2, and 3 due to improper service of summons. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to legal requirements for summons and reiterated that knowledge of a suit does not substitute proper service. The appellant was directed to pay the costs of the court to the plaintiff respondent. Both judges concurred with this decision.
|
