Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

It appears that trial Court issued the notices of the said civil suit to the appellant but same was not received by the present appellant for the reason that plaintiff did not send the notice on correct address of the appellant, because appellant is resident of Village Goarkhurd, Tehsil Ater, District Bhind wherein in the plaint itself, the address had been mentioned as village Goarkhurd, Tehsil Gohad. Therefore, notice was not received by the appellant. The summons returned back on account of incorrect address. Plaintiffs were HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (Ram Sanjivan Chaturvedi vs. Smt. Vimla Gurjar & Others) directed to pay process fee with correct address and further direction to reissue summons for defendant by registered AD post but it appears that plaintiff never submitted the correct address on which the appellant could have served because the change of Tehsil made the whole service of summons ineffective. Meanwhile, the case was lingering on for service of defendant. On 30.08.2010, plaintiff filed an application under Order 5 rule 20 CPC merely on the basis that case is pending for a long time for service of summons. Therefore proper course would be to invoke the provision of substituted service by way of publication. The said application was allowed and plaintiff was allowed to serve respondent through publication. Although the publication was made but even in publication the address was mentioned at Tehsil Gohad and therefore, it appears that defendant did not appear and thereafter he was proceeded ex parte. Therefore, ex parte judgment and decree was passed on 29.11.2010. After almost one year on 27.11.2011 son of plaintiff visited the appellant and informed him about the decision of the Court with a direction to vacate the plot in question. Thereafter, it came to the knowledge of the appellant about passing of such ex parte decree. Thereafter, certified copy was obtained and application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed. The same was dismissed by the trial Court. Therefore, appellant is before this Court.

According to the learned counsel for the appellant, trial court erred in passing the impugned judgment and decree HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (Ram Sanjivan Chaturvedi vs. Smt. Vimla Gurjar & Others) behind the back of the appellant because if the appellant could not be served by the respondent/plaintiff, then it was the duty of the plaintiff to serve the defendant properly but when address itself (mentioned in the plaint) indicates incorrect address then it was bound to happen that summons were never served over the appellant. It is further submitted that even the publication notice is bad in law because it was not served over the appellant on correct address. Appellant lived in a village at Tehsil Ater, whereas address indicates at village at Tehsil Gohad. It is submitted that appellant in his evidence has categorically mentioned the such facts about the service part and looking to the casual attitude adopted by the plaintiff to serve the defendant, it is clear that the plaintiff deliberately allowed the omission of correct address to continue for personal gains.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

Here, in the present case, matter pertains to service of summons over the appellant/defendant. Perusal of the plaint reveals that the address of the appellant was referred as respondent of Tehsil Gohad, District Bhind whereas appellant has specifically submitted that he is resident of Tehsil Ater, District Bhind. It is further revealed from perusal of the proceedings of the trial Court that on 27.04.2009 notices were issued for service of defendant and matter was fixed on 07.05.2009. On said date since defendant could not be served, therefore, plaintiff was directed to pay process fee for service of defendant No.1 and matter was placed on 29.06.2009. On the said date the defendant No.1 to 7 were again unserved, whereas defendant No.8 was served. Since he could not appear therefore proceeded ex parte. Matter kept on crawling on different dates in which plaintiff was directed to pay process fee time and again but the defendant No.1/present appellant could not be served. The reason for non-service of present appellant was obvious as referred above because plaintiff never wrote correct address in the plaint. Therefore, presumably, notices were going on incorrect address. Plaintiff was always directed to pay process fee on the correct address of the defendant but HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (Ram Sanjivan Chaturvedi vs. Smt. Vimla Gurjar & Others) plaintiff always paid process fee on the incorrect address and this aspect vitiated the whole process of service because process fee was always paid on incorrect address.

Perusal of proceedings interestingly in the notice for publication the village of the petitioner reflects as "Tehsil Mehgaon" instead of "Tehsil Gohad" as referred earlier in the plaint but both these Tehsil places are not correct addresses because appellant lived in Tehsil Ater at the relevant point of time. Therefore, for all legitimate and practical purposes, appellant was not properly served on his correct address. Although submission of the respondent was that notice of publication is deemed service but it should always proceed with stipulation that it was effected on correct address. If the address is incorrect then the whole proceedings are vitiated. Publication of notice should be in the vicinity where person resides. In other place, if publication is made then the publication itself becomes incomplete service qua the person HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (Ram Sanjivan Chaturvedi vs. Smt. Vimla Gurjar & Others) who is sought to be served. Plaintiff cannot be given premium for her fault of not providing correct address of the defendant No.1. Even from the proceedings it is nowhere gathered that plaintiff intended to service the respondent on the correct address through registered AD mode which could have been an effective mode if the correct address would have been provided. The Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court time and again taken a lenient view in respect of service of summons over the defendant. The purpose is obvious because matter as far as practicable be decided on merits and any party may not be given any opportunity to play with process of law. Here, it appears that substantial justice would have been accorded only when appellant would have been given a chance to contest the case. It is not a case where appellant refused the summons to accept or did not appear despite service. It is the case of non-service of summons due to incorrect address.