cites: 29304595 doctypes: judgments

Binod Bihari Singh vs Union Of India on 8 December, 1992

The petitioners have no case that they had at no point of time resided in building bearing door No.15/XIV of Chunakkara Grama Panchayat. Though the case set out by the petitioners was that they came to know about the suit only on 29.9.2006 from a collection agent of the plaintiffs, the name of the collection agent was not disclosed either in the application filed in the court below or even when the first defendant was examined as DW-1. Even in the instant civil revision petition, the name of the collection agent is not disclosed. It is thus evident from the admitted facts of the case that the case set out by the petitioners that they were unaware of the suit till 29.9.2006 is a false plea which cannot be relied on. The Apex Court has in Binod Bihari Singh v. Union of India (supra) and Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and Another (supra), held that once the stand taken by the defendants regarding C.R.P.No.14 of 2013 6 service of summons is found to be false, the application for setting aside the exparte decree is liable to be dismissed without any further enquiry. As the summons had been duly served on the second respondent who is none other than the wife of the first defendant, by affixure after she refused to accept the notice when it was tendered by the process server, it cannot be said that the defendants had no notice of the suit. The process server attempted to serve notice on the defendants on 25.12.2005. The suit was decreed exparte only six months later, on 20.7.2006. It cannot therefore be said that the defendants did not have sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiffs' claim.

Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 135 - G N Ray - Full Document

Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) By Lrs vs Exe.Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project & Anr on 3 November, 2008

The petitioners have no case that they had at no point of time resided in building bearing door No.15/XIV of Chunakkara Grama Panchayat. Though the case set out by the petitioners was that they came to know about the suit only on 29.9.2006 from a collection agent of the plaintiffs, the name of the collection agent was not disclosed either in the application filed in the court below or even when the first defendant was examined as DW-1. Even in the instant civil revision petition, the name of the collection agent is not disclosed. It is thus evident from the admitted facts of the case that the case set out by the petitioners that they were unaware of the suit till 29.9.2006 is a false plea which cannot be relied on. The Apex Court has in Binod Bihari Singh v. Union of India (supra) and Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and Another (supra), held that once the stand taken by the defendants regarding C.R.P.No.14 of 2013 6 service of summons is found to be false, the application for setting aside the exparte decree is liable to be dismissed without any further enquiry. As the summons had been duly served on the second respondent who is none other than the wife of the first defendant, by affixure after she refused to accept the notice when it was tendered by the process server, it cannot be said that the defendants had no notice of the suit. The process server attempted to serve notice on the defendants on 25.12.2005. The suit was decreed exparte only six months later, on 20.7.2006. It cannot therefore be said that the defendants did not have sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiffs' claim.

Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 424 - B S Reddy - Full Document

G.P. Srivastava vs Shri R.K. Raizada & Ors on 3 March, 2000

2. I heard Sri.Sreekanth S. Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.V. Philip Mathew, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended relying on the decision of the Apex Court in G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada and Ors. [(2000) 3 SCC 54] that the words "was prevented by any sufficient cause from C.R.P.No.14 of 2013 3 appearing" must be liberally construed to enable the court to do complete justice between the parties and that even assuming that there was some delay on the part of the defendants in moving the court to have the exparte decree set aside, the plaintiffs could have been compensated by award of costs.

Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 314 - Full Document

Sunil Poddar & Ors vs Union Bank Of India on 8 January, 2008

Relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in Sunil Poddar and Others v. Union Bank of India [(2008) 2 SCC 326], Parimal v. Veena @ Bharti [(2011) 3 SCC 545] and Ramji Pandey & Ors. v. Swaran Kali [(2010) 14 SCC 492] the learned counsel for the respondents contended that even assuming that there was some irregularity in the service of summons, the exparte decree is not liable to be set aside, if the court is satisfied that the defendants had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer to the C.R.P.No.14 of 2013 4 plaintiffs' claim. The learned counsel for the respondents contended relying on the observations and findings in the impugned order that the petitioners who had not disputed the fact that the process server deputed from the trial court had on 24.12.2005 had attempted to serve the summons on the second defendant and had affixed the summons at their residence since the second defendant refused to accept it, cannot be heard to contend that they were unaware of the suit. The learned counsel contended that the petitioners have no case that there was any irregularity in the service of summons, that their case is that there was no service of summons, that the fact that service of summons was effected is proved by the materials on record namely the report submitted by the process server and therefore, as the explanation offered by the defendants has been found to be false, the instant civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed on that short ground.

Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 147 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Parimal vs Veena @ Bharti on 8 February, 2011

Relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in Sunil Poddar and Others v. Union Bank of India [(2008) 2 SCC 326], Parimal v. Veena @ Bharti [(2011) 3 SCC 545] and Ramji Pandey & Ors. v. Swaran Kali [(2010) 14 SCC 492] the learned counsel for the respondents contended that even assuming that there was some irregularity in the service of summons, the exparte decree is not liable to be set aside, if the court is satisfied that the defendants had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer to the C.R.P.No.14 of 2013 4 plaintiffs' claim. The learned counsel for the respondents contended relying on the observations and findings in the impugned order that the petitioners who had not disputed the fact that the process server deputed from the trial court had on 24.12.2005 had attempted to serve the summons on the second defendant and had affixed the summons at their residence since the second defendant refused to accept it, cannot be heard to contend that they were unaware of the suit. The learned counsel contended that the petitioners have no case that there was any irregularity in the service of summons, that their case is that there was no service of summons, that the fact that service of summons was effected is proved by the materials on record namely the report submitted by the process server and therefore, as the explanation offered by the defendants has been found to be false, the instant civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed on that short ground.

Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 594 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Ramji Pandey & Ors vs Swaran Kali on 25 October, 2010

Relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in Sunil Poddar and Others v. Union Bank of India [(2008) 2 SCC 326], Parimal v. Veena @ Bharti [(2011) 3 SCC 545] and Ramji Pandey & Ors. v. Swaran Kali [(2010) 14 SCC 492] the learned counsel for the respondents contended that even assuming that there was some irregularity in the service of summons, the exparte decree is not liable to be set aside, if the court is satisfied that the defendants had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer to the C.R.P.No.14 of 2013 4 plaintiffs' claim. The learned counsel for the respondents contended relying on the observations and findings in the impugned order that the petitioners who had not disputed the fact that the process server deputed from the trial court had on 24.12.2005 had attempted to serve the summons on the second defendant and had affixed the summons at their residence since the second defendant refused to accept it, cannot be heard to contend that they were unaware of the suit. The learned counsel contended that the petitioners have no case that there was any irregularity in the service of summons, that their case is that there was no service of summons, that the fact that service of summons was effected is proved by the materials on record namely the report submitted by the process server and therefore, as the explanation offered by the defendants has been found to be false, the instant civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed on that short ground.

Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 23 - M Sharma - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search