Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.15 seconds)Kishan Bharwany vs V.P. Aggarwal on 8 April, 2002
14. In the present suit, the defendant, despite having entered appearance has
deliberately furnished wrong address knowing full well that he is not residing at the
given address. The plaintiff by effecting service at the given address as furnished by
CS no. 638/2024 Ziaul Islam vs. Anil Kumar Mehta Page no. 4/5
the defendant is deemed to have served the defendant in accordance with the
judgment passed by Delhi High Court in the matter of Kishan Bharwany vs. V.P
Aggarwal; (2002) 97 DLT 723 and also in accordance with the provisions of Order
XXXVII Rule 3(2) CPC which prescribes that unless otherwise ordered, all summons
notices and other judicial processes, required to be served on the defendant shall be
deemed to have been duly served on him if they are left at their address given by him
for such service. In the present suit, the conduct of the defendant is writ at large who
has left no stone unturned to evade the service of the summons and has given an
incorrect address at the time of entering appearance at which address also the
defendant is not found on the ground of his having been shifted long time ago.
Accordingly, in view of the plaintiff having taken steps to serve the defendant of the
summons for judgment, who could not be found at the furnished address is
accordingly deemed to have served the defendant in terms of Order XXXVII Rule
3(2) CPC. The defendant till date despite having entered appearance on 13.11.2024
has failed to appear before the court nor has filed any leave to defend application
within the prescribed period of 10 days in terms of Sub Rule 5 of Rule 3 of Order
XXXVII CPC, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for an amount of Rs. 5 Lacs with
pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum with cost till the date of
realization.
1