9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the ex-parte decree. 2. Service of summons. 3. Limitation period for setting aside the ex-parte decree. 4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the CPC. 5. Impact of the compromise decree on the Appellant. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Ex-parte Decree: The High Court of Calcutta allowed two applications under Section 115 of the CPC, 1908, and set aside the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Bankura, which had annulled an ex-parte decree against the Appellant and Respondent No. 10. The Supreme Court found that the High Court treated the revisional applications as first appeals, which was not warranted by law. The High Court re-examined and re-assessed the evidence, substituting its own findings for those of the subordinate court, which is beyond the scope of its revisional jurisdiction. 2. Service of Summons: The Supreme Court observed that the summons was not duly served upon the Appellant. The order sheet of the Trial Court showed that the plaint filed on October 14, 1974, was defective and no writ of summons could have been issued on that date. The defects were only rectified on December 6, 1974, and the amended plaint was registered on the same date. The evidence of the process server was found to be unreliable, and the return of service lacked credibility. The Appellant was not residing at the address mentioned and was on duty at the hospital during the alleged service time. 3. Limitation Period for Setting Aside the Ex-parte Decree: Under Article 123 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period for making an application to set aside an ex-parte decree is thirty days from the date of the decree or when the summons was not duly served, from when the applicant had knowledge of the decree. The High Court did not give a categorical finding on whether the summons was duly served but proceeded to consider the Appellant's knowledge of the decree. The Supreme Court found that the Appellant had no knowledge of the decree until November 4, 1975, and his application was within the limitation period. 4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the CPC: The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC is confined to questions of jurisdiction. The High Court is not entitled to re-examine or re-assess the evidence on record and substitute its own findings unless the findings of the subordinate court are manifestly contrary to evidence or result in grave injustice. The High Court erred in substituting its conjectures for the findings on evidence given by the Additional Subordinate Judge. 5. Impact of the Compromise Decree on the Appellant: The compromise decree passed on February 6, 1975, divided all the properties among Respondents Nos. 1 to 9, with Bharat Oil Mill going exclusively to Respondent No. 1. The Appellant was not a party to the compromise. The Supreme Court held that if the Appellant succeeds in establishing his right in the firm of Bharat Oil Mill, the allocation of properties would have to be re-evaluated. However, Respondent No. 1 agreed not to claim compensation from other properties if the Appellant succeeds, thus the entire decree need not be disturbed. Respondent No. 10 did not challenge the ex-parte decree and was not considered further. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the Appeal, reversed the judgment of the Calcutta High Court, and reinstated the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Bankura, setting aside the ex-parte decree against the Appellant. The suit will be tried on the basis that the compromise between Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and Respondents Nos. 5 to 9 is not binding on the Appellant. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 were ordered to pay the costs of the Appeal to the Appellant.
|
