Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.38 seconds)
Documents citing Kuldip Rai vs Sharan Singh (Deceased By Lrs) And Ors. on 15 February, 1989

Champa vs Rajender Kumar on 20 March, 2025

Before passing order of substituted service by publication in the newspaper, the Court must satisfy that there are reasons to believe that the defendant was keeping out of the 9 ( 2025:HHC:7541 ) way to evade service. If the order of substituted service is passed mechanically by the Court, there is likelihood of misuse of the process of the Court. So far the order of substituted service by publication in a newspaper is concerned, it should not be passed lightly without ascertaining whether the prerequisites of Order 5 Rule 20, C.P.C. are fulfilled as it is a matter of common knowledge that generally people do not read court notices in the newspapers. The anxiety of the Courts to expedite the proceedings in cases by hurrying up with the service of the defendant by resorting to extraordinary mode of substituted service, such as publication in the newspaper, may defeat the very purpose and result in gross injustice (See: Baljit Singh Bhatia v. Kulwant Singh and others, 1978 PLR 287; Kuldip Singh v. Sharan Singh, 1989 (1) PLR 536: Sant Kaur v. Khazan Singh, 1989 CCC 449, Smt. Ishro v. Sarmukh Singh, 1990 (1) PLR 324, Harbhej Singh v. Diwan Singh and others, 1990 CCC 258, and Bijender Singh v. Ranbir Singh and others, 1990 (1) PLR 375."
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Date Of Decision: 04.07.2025 vs Kalpana Kumari on 4 July, 2025

reasonable diligence cannot find the defendant and there is no authorized agent or any male member of the house to accept service, the serving officer should affix a copy of the summons on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which defendant ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain and shall make a report relating thereto giving all the facts and circumstances. It is only then the modes of service provided under Rules 15 and 17 of Order 5, C.P.C. are complied with and the Court is satisfied and comes to the conclusion that there are reasons to believe that the defendant is keeping out of the way for the purpose of evading service or that for any other reasons, the summons cannot be served in ordinary way, the Court may order summons to be served by substituted service which is by affixing a copy on some conspicuous part of the house last resided by him or where he carried on business or personally worked for gain lastly. But this mode of substituted service is to be adopted as a last resort and the Court has been empowered to order service of the defendant in any other manner which has now been clarified in the amended Rule 20(1-A) that service may be ordered to be effected through publication in the newspaper. The provisions of Order 5 Rule 20, C.P.C. are not to be read in isolation but in conjunction with earlier provisions which shows that order regarding service of defendant by way of publication in the newspaper is to be passed as a last resort when there is no possibility of effecting service on him by other modes as provided therein. Before passing order of substituted service by publication in the newspaper, the Court must satisfy that there are reasons to believe that the defendant was keeping out of the way to evade service. If the order of substituted service is passed mechanically by the Court, there is likelihood of misuse of the process of the Court. So far the order of substituted service by publication in a newspaper is concerned, it should not be passed lightly without ascertaining whether the prerequisites of Order 5 Rule 20, C.P.C. are fulfilled as it is a matter of common knowledge that generally people do not read court notices in the newspapers. The anxiety of the Courts to expedite the proceedings in cases by hurrying up with the service of the defendant by resorting to extraordinary mode of substituted service, such as publication in the newspaper, may defeat the very purpose and result in gross injustice (See: Baljit Singh Bhatia v. Kulwant Singh and others, 1978 PLR 287; Kuldip Singh v. Sharan Singh, 1989 (1) PLR 536: Sant Kaur v. Khazan Singh, 1989 CCC 449, Smt. Ishro v. Sarmukh Singh, 1990 (1) PLR 324, Harbhej Singh v. Diwan Singh and others, 1990 CCC 258, and Bijender Singh v. Ranbir Singh and others, 1990 (1) PLR
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anil Kumari vs Tejaswi Alias Yashpal And Ors on 22 November, 2019

substituted service, such as publication in the newspaper, may defeat the very purpose and result in gross injustice (See: Baljit Singh Bhatia v. Kulwant Singh and others, 1978 PLR 287; Kuldip Singh v. Sharan Singh, 1989 (1) PLR 536: Sant Kaur v. Khazan Singh, 1989 CCC 449, Smt. Ishro v. Sarmukh Singh, 1990 (1) PLR 324, Harbhej Singh v. Diwan Singh and others, 1990 CCC 258, and Bijender Singh v. Ranbir Singh and others, 1990 (1) PLR 375."
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - T S Chauhan - Full Document

Rattan Kumar Jain And Anr. vs Canara Bank on 21 February, 2003

9. In my view, this decision squarely covers the case on our hand. As pointed out already, it is evident from the two guarantee deeds executed by the 1st appellant (4th defendant) referred to above that the 4th defendant had given two addresses--one of the Guwahati and the other of Masjid Moth, New Delhi. Still notice was not taken to either of these two addresses, but had been taken to an address with a wrong door number as pointed out already. The notice sent could not be naturally served, and was returned on the ground that there was no such person at that address. The normal effort of the respondent-Bank should have been to seek an order from the DRT for issuance of fresh notice to either or both of the two other addresses mentioned above. Without doing so, and without even stating that the 1st appellant (4th defendant) could not be served by any other means or that he is avoiding service deliberately, the learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank had merely made a request for publishing the notice in the newspaper, and that was granted for the mere asking without the Registrar recording his satisfaction that the 4th defendant was avoiding service deliberately, and could not be served at any other address or by any other mode.
Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bal Kishan And Ors. vs Tara Chand Nuniwala Dharmath Trust ... on 19 May, 2005

6. After recording evidence on both the issues, the Rent Controller concluded that there was no evidence on record to show that the tenant was not residing at Narnaul or he was residing at village Ram Nagar, District Nainital. The view of the Rent Controller rejecting the aforementioned plea of the tenant-petitioner, based on the judgment of this Court in the case of Kuldeep Rai v. Sharan Singh, I.L.R. (1989)2 P&H 175, reads as under:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

________________________________________________ vs Sanjeev Kumar Sharma on 18 April, 2024

Court. So far the order of substituted service by publication in a newspaper is concerned, it should not be passed lightly without ascertaining whether the pre- requisites of Order 5 Rule 20, C.P.C. are fulfilled as it is a matter of common knowledge that generally people do not read court notices in the newspapers. The anxiety of the Courts to expedite the proceedings in cases by hurrying up with the service of the defendant by resorting to extraordinary mode of substituted service, such as publication in the newspaper, may defeat the very purpose and result in gross injustice (See: Baljit r Singh Bhatia v. Kulwant Singh and others, 1978 PLR 287; Kuldip Singh v. Sharan Singh, 1989 (1) PLR 536: Sant Kaur v. Khazan Singh, 1989 CCC 449, Smt. Ishro v. Sarmukh Singh, 1990 (1) PLR 324, Harbhej Singh v. Diwan Singh and others, 1990 CCC 258, and Bijender Singh v.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Meena Kumari vs Narender Kumar on 12 March, 2025

Before passing order of substituted service by publication in the newspaper, the Court must satisfy that there are reasons to believe that the defendant was keeping out of the way to evade service. If the order of substituted service is passed mechanically by the Court, there is likelihood of misuse of the process of the Court. So far the order of substituted service by publication in a newspaper is concerned, it should not be passed lightly without ascertaining whether the prerequisites of Order 5 Rule 20, C.P.C. are fulfilled as it is a matter of common knowledge that generally people do not read court notices in the newspapers. The anxiety of the Courts to expedite the proceedings in cases by hurrying up with the service of the defendant by resorting to extraordinary mode of substituted service, such as publication in the newspaper, may defeat the very purpose and result in gross injustice (See: Baljit Singh Bhatia v. Kulwant Singh and others, 1978 PLR 287; Kuldip Singh v. Sharan Singh, 1989 (1) PLR 536: Sant Kaur v. Khazan Singh, 1989 CCC 449, Smt. Ishro v. Sarmukh Singh, 1990 (1) PLR 324, Harbhej Singh v. Diwan Singh and others, 1990 CCC 258, and Bijender Singh v. Ranbir Singh and others, 1990 (1) PLR 375."
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next