Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 5]

Karnataka High Court

The Secretary vs Sri. D Ashok Kumar on 27 July, 2012

Author: N.Ananda

Bench: N. Ananda

                                1


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

        DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2012

                          BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANANDA

                   M.F.A. No.5341/2010

BETWEEN:

The Secretary
Sri Vidyashale
Sri Kashyapa Gurukula (Regd)
No.37, Patalamma Temple Street
Basavangudi,
Bangalore - 560 004.                           ... Appellant

(By Sri N.Sriram Reddy, Advocate for Sriyuths Venkatappa L.
& Prakash K.V., Advocates)

AND:

1. Sri D.Ashok Kumar
   S/o P.R.Divakaran
   Aged about 51 Years.

2. Smt.Subha Ashok Kumar
   W/o Sri D.Ashok Kumar
   Aged about 46 Years.

Both are R/at 'Dharini'
No.1469, 24th Main, 6th Cross
2nd Stage, BTM Layout
Bangalore - 560 076.                     ...    Respondents

(By Sri E.V.Gopalakrishnan Potty, Advocate for R1 & R2)
                               2


       This appeal is filed under order 43 Rule 1(d) of C.P.C.,
against    the   order     dated   24.04.2010,    passed     in
Misc.No.1074/2008, on the file of the VII Additional City
Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH.No.19), dismissing the petition
filed under order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. and etc.

      This appeal coming on for admission this day, the
Court delivered the following:

                       JUDGMENT

The first defendant/petitioner had made an application to set aside the exparte decree made in O.S.No.9597/2006 pleading that there was no service of suit summons.

2. After going through the records, I find that notice to the first defendant/petitioner was taken out in 'Hindu' Daily Newspaper, Bangalore Edition. In the circumstances, the petitioner/first defendant cannot be heard to say that he had no knowledge of the proceedings. The say of petitioner/first defendant that he had not read the newspaper cannot be accepted.

3. Under Order 5 Rule 20 (1A) CPC, service by an advertisement in a newspaper, which is in circulation in the locality in which the defendant is last known to have actually 3 and voluntarily resided, carried on business, is deemed to be service on the defendant.

4. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Np/-