9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of notice served by registered post with acknowledgement card under Order 5 second proviso to Rule 19A of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Compliance with the procedure prescribed under Order 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure in issuing summons. 3. Satisfaction required for resorting to substituted service. 4. Conditions to be satisfied under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside an ex-parte decree. 5. Impact of irregularity in service of summons on setting aside an ex-parte decree. 6. Presumption of service when summons are sent by registered post with acknowledgment due. 7. Burden of proof on the defendant to rebut the presumption of service. Analysis: 1. The main issue in this appeal was whether the service of notice sent by registered post with acknowledgement card was sufficient under Order 5 second proviso to Rule 19A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court examined the facts and held that the service through registered post was valid, especially when the postal addresses were correct, prepaid, and duly sent. 2. The Court addressed the contention regarding compliance with the procedure under Order 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure in issuing summons. It was observed that the change of the local daily for substituted service publication did not invalidate the service, as both local dailies were widely circulated in the area. 3. The issue of satisfaction required for resorting to substituted service was discussed. The Court found that the court's satisfaction for substituted service was implicit in the order directing service by publication, especially when the defendants were avoiding service. 4. Regarding the conditions under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside an ex-parte decree, the Court emphasized that the second condition, i.e., being prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing, was not satisfied in this case. 5. The impact of an irregularity in service of summons on setting aside an ex-parte decree was considered. The Court noted that an irregularity in service alone was not sufficient to set aside a decree under the second proviso to Order 9 Rule 13. 6. The Court discussed the presumption of service when summons are sent by registered post with acknowledgment due. It highlighted that the defendants had the burden to rebut the presumption with convincing and cogent evidence, which they failed to do in this case. 7. Finally, the Court analyzed the defendants' conduct in response to the registered summons. It was observed that one defendant did not appear to rebut the presumption of service, while the other defendant's conduct indicated that the summons had been duly served on him. Based on the facts and circumstances, the appeal was dismissed for lacking merit.
|
