Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(emphasis supplied) iii. Proposition: An ex parte decree in favour of the appellant cannot be set aside on mere technical ground that the summons had not been duly served when admittedly they had knowledge of the proceedings and date of hearing. a. Sri Nath Agrawal case (supra) - para 5, where it was observed as under:

―5. According to the learned counsel for the revisionist since no summons was served, therefore, the Explanation would not be at all attracted in the instant case, and, therefore, his right to deposit the amount continues and cannot in any way be cut down by any other consideration. This leads us to an enquiry as to what is meant by the words ―summons of the suit‖. The summons is issued by the court after institution of a suit requiring the defendant to appear before it on a particular date mentioned therein either for filing the written statement and appearance or for final disposal of the suit (see Order V, Rule 1, C. P. C.). It is based on the maxim audi alteram partem i. e., hear the other side or no one should be condemned unheard. The policy appears to be that some method should be evolved to inform the defending party about the claim made by the plaintiff and the date fixed for the appearance of the defending party. It is with this object that provision has been made for issue of summons in Order 5, Rules 1 to 8 of the Civil P. C. Rule 1 of O, V of the Code reads as under:--
Provided that any such appearance shall, if the Court so, directs, be made by the party in person.‖ It is significant to note that in Sub-clause (1) of Rule 1 the word ‗may' has been used instead of the word ‗shall'. It is because it is not necessary to issue summons in all cases. In cases covered by the proviso where the defendant makes his appearance at the presentation of the plaint and admits the claim, no summons need be issued. So, also if the defendant is a person of such rank as, in the opinion of the Court, requires service in the form of a letter, the Court can direct dispensing with issue of summons to him. A proviso now added in 1976 to Order V, Rule 1, C, P. C, as proviso to the existing proviso also shows that when a defendant appears after the summons has already been issued, he can be directed by the Court to file his written statement on the date of his appearance. This provision also 13uthorizes the Court to dispense with the service of the summons. The entire scheme of the Civil P. C. in this regard aims at only one thing to obtain the presence of the defendant to a claim and to provide full information about the nature of the claim made against him and also of the date when he is supposed to appear in Court to answer the claim. If the defendant party appears before the court after the registration of the suit, and he is informed about the nature of the claim and the date fixed for reply thereto it must be deemed that the defendant has waived the right to have a summons served on him. This can be seen from the record and also from the subsequent conduct of that party. The same legal position will arise when a party suo motu appears before the Court before actual service of summons either himself or through the counsel. In such a case if some date is fixed for filing the written statement and for hearing of the suit it would rather be too technical a view to _____________________________________________________________________________________________ take that service of summons in the ordinary course were still to be insisted upon and to hold that further proceedings in the suit would take place only thereafter. This is neither the purpose nor the way to look at various provisions of the Civil P. C. The whole basis on which the procedure laid down for the service of summons has very elaborately been dealt with by the Supreme Court in the case of Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal Kotah. The matter arises out of an election petition. After review of various authorities, it was observed that the basic purpose of the procedure was that the defendant must be made aware of the date fixed for the hearing of the case and for steps which are to be taken by that party, It is not meant as a measure of punishment if he fails to appear but then it becomes the duty of the Court to see that the party is aware of the date fixed in the suit If this be the intention of the law of procedure, the defendant cannot demand anything greater than this. As already narrated above the defendant had put in appearance in response to a notice on the application for attachment before judgment, After that he sought time for filing objections and on 11-9-1978 his counsel was present when the court fixed for filing the written statement and for final hearing the case, The defendant, in fact, never protested against this, nor he ever requested the court for obtaining copy of the plaint He never complained during the trial of the suit that he was not aware of the date fixed in the suit and therefore he could not deposit the amount on that date. In fact, on several dates he made applications praying for time and ultimately filed the written statement on 25-11- 1978. In these circumstances, the least that can be said about the defendant is and it is also obvious from his conduct throughout that he had never felt the necessity of service of a summons on him and he never raised any objection about it, Thus even if he had a right to have summons served on him that right stood forfeited due to his waiver, writ so large in the proceedings and also reflected in his actions before the Court, If at any stage he had raised the least doubt about his rights being prejudiced in any manner, he would have protested to the court as he was duly represented by a counsel. He cannot now be allowed to take shelter behind a stale plea that summons had not _____________________________________________________________________________________________ been served on him, It is not possible for me to countenance a situation in which the defendant though present in the court and on all dates fixed therein, is still allowed to insist that unless proper summons be served upon him he should be deemed to be unaware of the proceeding. In this case, I am clearly of the opinion that the order sheet dated 11-9-1978 itself should be treated to be a ‗summons' to the defendant for the purposes of Explanation to Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, because from this he got intimation of filing of the written statement as also for the final hearing of the suit It is this date which must be treated to be the date of ‗first hearing' of the suit, within the meaning of S, 20 (4) read with Explanation to the Section.‖ (emphasis supplied) b. Sunil Poddar & Ors. case (supra), where it has been observed in paras 16 to 19 as under:
―6 (1) (c) When summons served but not in due time - If it is proved that the summons was served on enable him to appear and answer on the day fixed in the summons, the Court shall postpone the hearing of the suit to a future day to be fixed by the Court, and shall direct notice of such day to be given to the defendant.
11. The Court, therefore, committed an illegality in dismissing the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree. It was a fit case where the Court should have exercised its jurisdiction under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC.

25. The objective of the process of issuance of summons is to obtain the presence of the defendant for final opportunity to be given to him to rebut the claim against him. Thus, if he appears at the initial stage in a sense there is waiver of the right to have summons served on him. This position has been explained in the case of Sri Nath Agrawal case (supra) and to that extent the aforesaid has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Siraj Ahmad Siddiqui case (supra).