9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or setting aside the judgment and decree. There are no reason to interfere with the judgment and order of the High Court - appeal dismissed. - Civil Appeal No. 71 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5847 of 2017) - - - Dated:- 29-1-2018 - Dipak Misra, C.J.I., A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ. For AppellantPlaintiff: Kumar Shashank, Rukhmini Bobde and Vishal Prasad, Advs. JUDGMENT Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, 1. Delay condoned. 2. The present appeal is from the judgment of a Single Judge at the Nagpur Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. While allowing a first appeal, the High Court set aside the judgment and order of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Nagpur which had decreed a suit for specific performance instituted by the Appellant, ex-parte. 3. The subject matter of the suit for specific performance is an agreement dated 15 July 2006 entered into by the Appellant with the original Defendant in respect of agricultural land admeasuring 1.66 Hectares (4.07 acres) situated in Mauza-Sondapar, Tahsil Hingna, District Nagpur. The total consideration payable under the agreement was ₹ 13,04, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court passed the following order: Deft. served on public notice in daily news paper Lokmat on 04.10.2011 but he remained absent. Suit proceeded ex parte against the Defendant. Suit proceeded ex parte against the Deft. 8. The suit was decreed on 13 June 2014 and the Appellant was directed to deposit the balance consideration of ₹ 9,78,391 within one month. 9. The Appellant claims to have deposited the amount on 17 July 2014. 10. On 12 September 2014, the original Defendant filed a first appeal Under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the High Court. He died on 21 August 2015. The Appellant submitted an application for bringing his legal representatives on record. The application was eventually allowed on 23 September 2016. 11. The High Court by its judgment dated 7 July 2015 held that neither the report of the bailiff nor the order of the Trial Court indicate that a copy of the summons was affixed in a conspicuous place on the court house and at the house where the Defendant was known to have last resided. The High Court held that there was a breach of the provisions of Order V Rule 20(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed and the bailiff was informed that the original Defendant had left the premises nearly two years earlier and resided elsewhere. 15. Order V Rules 17 provides as follows: 17. Procedure when Defendant refuses to accept service, or cannot be found.- Where the Defendant or his agent or such other person as aforesaid refuses to sign the acknowledgment, or where the serving officer, after using all due and reasonable diligence, cannot find the Defendant, who is absent from his residence at the time when service is sought to be effected on him at his residence and there is no likelihood of his being found at the residence within a reasonable time and there is no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, nor any other person on whom service can be made, the serving officer shall affix a copy of the summons on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the Defendant ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, and shall then return the original to the court from which it was issued, with a report endorsed thereon or annexed thereto stating that he has so affixed the copy, the circumstances under wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service is good or not, the attention of Courts is drawn to the necessity of strictly following the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as to the service of processes. Ordinarily, service should not be considered sufficient unless all the requirements of the law in that behalf are fulfilled. The object of the service is to inform a party of the proceedings in due time. When from the return of a serving officer it appears that there is no likelihood that a process will come to the knowledge of the party in due time, or a probability exists that it will not so come to his knowledge, the service should not be considered to be proper. The law contemplates that the primary method of service should be tendering or delivering a copy of the process to the party personally, in case in which it may be practicable to do so. It is the duty of the serving officer to make all proper efforts to find the party, with a view to effect personal service. If it be not possible after reasonable endeavour to find the party, then only the service may be made on an adult male member of the family residing with him. The submission that Under Order V Rule 20, it was not necessary to affix a co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
