9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Proper service of writ of summons. 2. Service of writs on partnership firms and partners. 3. Service by affixation. 4. Knowledge and training of process-servers. 5. Compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure and High Court rules. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Proper Service of Writ of Summons: The court emphasized the importance of proper service of writs of summons, noting that the suit was failing due to inadequate service on defendants 1, 2, and 3. The court granted the plaintiff an opportunity to effect proper service, highlighting the frequent inadequacies in service and the need for strict adherence to legal procedures. 2. Service of Writs on Partnership Firms and Partners: Defendant 1, a partnership firm, and defendants 2 and 3, partners of the firm, were not properly served. The process-server attempted service at residential addresses not mentioned in the cause title and described a partner as an "authorised employee," which was incorrect. The court clarified that service on a partnership firm should be either on a partner or a manager at the principal place of business, as per Order 30 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Service by Affixation: The court found the service by affixation on defendants 2 and 3 to be inadequate. The process-server's actions did not comply with the requirements of Order 5 Rule 17, which mandates that service by affixation can only occur after using all due and reasonable diligence to find the defendant and ensuring there is no likelihood of finding the defendant within a reasonable time. The court emphasized that mere absence from the residence does not justify service by affixation. 4. Knowledge and Training of Process-Servers: The court highlighted the profound ignorance of process-servers regarding the rules and procedures for serving writs. The process-servers lacked knowledge of the Civil Procedure Code and High Court rules, relying on outdated instructions from the Nazir or senior process-servers. The court stressed the need for continuous training and updating of process-servers to prevent defective services. 5. Compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure and High Court Rules: The court underscored the necessity of strict compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure and the amended rules of the High Court. The process-servers' actions in this case did not meet the legal standards for proper service. The court referred to several precedents and rules, including Order 5 Rules 12, 15, and 17, and emphasized that service should be made on the defendant in person whenever practicable. The court also discussed the specific rules for serving agents, managers, and family members, highlighting the importance of adhering to these rules to ensure valid service. Conclusion: The court concluded that there was no proper service in this case and directed that the suit should be removed from the undefended list. A fresh writ of summons was ordered to be issued for service on the defendants (excluding defendant 4) in accordance with the law. The question of costs was reserved.
|
