Delhi High Court
Krishan Kumar Shyam Lal-Bansal vs Union Of India And Anr. on 6 September, 1993
Equivalent citations: 52(1993)DLT305, (1993)105PLR53
JUDGMENT P.N. Nag, J.
(1) By this application the applicant/Union of India has sought for setting the ex parte decree dated 4.4.1991 passed in SuitNo. 3169/90 on the ground that -XEN. Construction Division-XIII,O.P-W.D-, who has a necessary party to the suit, was not made a party to the suit. Only the Secretary to the Ministry of Urban Development was made a party to the suit. Summons on behalf of the Ministry of Urban Development were received by a clerk who was influenced by the contractorM/s. Krishan Kumar Shyam Lal Bansal with a view to ensuring that the Award which is under challenge will be made rule of the Court and that the department is taking stern action against the said clerk.
(2) In this case the award has been made rule of the Court as no objections to the award have been filed and the period of limitation isover. No error apparent on the face of the record has been shown.
(3) This ground is wholly misconceived. Xen is not a necessary party.Under Article 300 of the Constitution of India, the Government of India may sue or be sued by the name of the Union of India, as a Juristicpersonality. Union of India was a party to the proceedings and when Union of India was served through the Secretary to the Ministry of Urban Development, this was a proper service on the Union of India. I am also supported by a case Ajvinder Stngh Bugga v. Union of India, reported in1992 R.L.R. (Note) 37, wherein it was held that under Section 79 and Order 27 of Civil Procedure Code summons in the case have to be sent to the Secretary to the Government or its authorised officer and in that case the summons were sent to the Secretary Government of India and were duly served on4.3.1991. Executive Engineer was not an authorised officer and it was not necessary to send the summons to him.
(4) Next contention that. contractor has managed to get the service effected on the clerk is also not tenable. Such averment had been made on 20.11.1991 and the decree was passed on 4.41991. it. has not been shown what stern action has the Government taken against the clerk.It has also not been stated in the application as to what is the name of the clerk against whom the action is being taken by the Government for the alleged lapse. Further, it has also not been explained in the application as to who is the officer responsible for receiving the summons on behalf of the Ministry and as to why such summons have not been received by that officer and why clerk alone is being held responsible. To my mind. such aground taken by the applicant is only with a view to make out a ground for setting aside the so called ex parte decree.
(5) Furthermore, this application has been filed after 205 days and no application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condensation of delay for setting aside the ex parte decree has been filed. The applicationis, therefore, hopelessly bared by time and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.