Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"6.(1)(c)When summons served but not in due time - If it is proved that the summons was served on the defendant, but not in sufficient time to 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."
(ii)(1997) 11 Supreme Court Cases 159 [Yallawwa (Smt) Vs. Shantavva (Smt)] wherein the Apex Court held as follows:
He submitted that of the said proceeding was an appellate proceeding then the High Court was justified in interfering with the order passed by the learned Trial Judge for the obvious reason the respondent was tried to be served in way if substituted service under Order V Rule 20 C.P.C. That she being an illiterate lady had not read and could not have read the newspaper publication about the pendency of the Hindu Marriage Petition and consequently she had no knowledge about the pendency of the said petition. Even otherwise it was not shown that any case was mode out by the plaintiff in that case for getting the notice served by way of substituted service and no attempt was made to serve the respondent in ordinary manner as required by Order V Rule 12 as well as Order V Rules 15 and 17 C.P.C Consequently, the ex parte decree was a nullity being passed against a party which was not served in accordance with law and in case of such a null and void decree, there was no question of limitation or in ay case limitation ought to have been condoned in the interest of justice by the Trail Court itself and as that was not done, the High Court was justified in condoning the delay. It was not true that the respondent knew about the ex parte decree when she was served with notice on 1.3.1990. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held as follows:
...
45. In the result, I would answer the reference thus: Where the judgment-debtor flies an application to have the execution sale declared void and the application is filed beyond thirty days from the date of the sale, if the decree-holder or the auction purchaser wants to defeat the application by urging that the application should have been filed within thirty days of the date of the sale under Article 166 of the Limitation Act of 1908 (or the corresponding Article 127 of the Act of 1963), for the reason that the summons had been duly served by affixture on the judgment-debtor as required by Order 5, Rule 19 it is necessary that there should have been strict compliance with the provisions of Order 5, Rule 19 by the executing Court when it proceeded to hold the sale in the absence of the judgment-debtor. In particular, where the return of the process server under Rule 17 has not already been verified by the affidavit of the serving officer the Court shall examine the serving officer on oath or cause him to be so examined by another Court touching his proceedings. It should also declare expressly that the summons has been duly served, though the exact form of that declaration may be in any convenient form, such as, 'it is declared that the (defendant has been duly served" or "it is declared that the service is sufficient" or simply "defendant duly served" or "service sufficient." What is important is that the endorsement of the Court itself should indicate that the presiding officer has applied his mind and considers that the summons has been duly served.

10.In support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel relied upon the following judgments:

(i)AIR 1967 Supreme Court 1384 [Panna Lal Vs. Murari Lal (dead) by his legal representatives] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
...
3.Under O.9, R.13, C.P.C., a decree passed exparte against a defendant is liable to be set aside if the summons was not duly served or if the defendant was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing. If the summons is not duly served, the defendant suffers an injury and he is entitled ex debito justitiae to an order setting aside the exparte decree provided he applies to the Court within the prescribed period of limitation. Under Art. 164 of the Indian Limitation Act 1908, the period of limitation for an application by a defendant for an order to set aside a decree passed exparte was 30 days from the date of the decree of the summons was not duly served, when the applicant had knowledge of the decree. The onus is on the defendant to show that the application is within time and he had knowledge of the decree within 30 days of the application. If the defendant produces some evidence to show that the application is within time, it is for the plaintiff to rebut this evidence and to establish satisfactorily that the defendant had knowledge of the decree more than 30 days before the date of the application.
(ii)(2008) 1 MLJ 1214 (SC) [Mahabir Singh Vs. Subhash and others] wherein the Apex Court held as follows:
...
6.The approach of the High Court, in our opinion, was not correct. There exists a presumption that the official act was been done in ordinary course of business. Admittedly, an exparte decree was passed. Defendant for getting it set aside was required to establish that either no summons was served on him or he had sufficient cause for remaining absent on the date fixed for hearing the suit exparte.