9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 682X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was rejected by the First Appellate Court vide order dated 23-10-2002. Against that, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a' Writ Petition No. 3089 of 2003 and this Court vide order dated 16-12-2003 allowed the writ petition, and restored the first appeal. Petitioner filed a copy of the said judgment/order before the First Appellate Court and in order to hear the appeal, notices were issued to the respondents therein. First time the matter was taken up before the First Appellate Court on 3-2-2004 and an application for amendment was preferred by the petitioner on 19-2-2004. Notices were issued to the respondents in the First Appeal. However, one of the respondents remained unserved as the learned First Appellate Court wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... substituted service is permissible and what are the circumstances for moving the application. 4. Order 5. Rule 20 of the CPC provides for service of summons in the suit and the appeals by substituted mode and Clause 1 of the same reads as under: Where the Court is satisfied that there is reason to believe that the defendant is keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service, or that for any other reason, the summons cannot be served in the ordinary way, the Court shall order the summons to be served by affixing a copy thereof in some conspicuous place in the Court's house............ Further, Clause (1-A) thereof reads-as under:- Where the Court acting under sub-rule (1) orders service by an advertisement i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of Order 5, Rule 20 of the Code will not be enough. Only when the Court is satisfied from the materials on record that there is reason to believe that the defendant is keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service, or that for any other reason summons cannot be served in the ordinary way, the Court will be entitled to order service of summons under Order 5, Rule 20 of the Code . 7. Similar view has been reiterated in Ram August Tewari v. Bindeshwarl Tewari AIR1972Pat142 . 8. In Ambika Prasad v. Kodai Upadhya AIR1945All45, this Court considered a case where the defendant could not be served being detained in jail and it was held there that in such a situation as the defendant could not be served the proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12. Similar view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in K. K. Modi v. K. N. Modi . [1998]1SCR601. 13. In Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. N. Raju Reddiar AIR1997SC1005 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that filing successive misconceived and frivolous applications for clarification, modification or for seeking a review of the order interferes with the purity of the administration of law and salutary and healthy practice. Such a litigant must be dealt with a very heavy hand. 14. In Sobia Khan v. State of U. P. AIR1999SC2284. the Hon'ble Apex Court held that filing totally misconceived petition amounts to abuse of the process of the Court and such litigant is not required to be dealt with lightly. 15. In Abdul Rah ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
