Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)
Chitrekha vs Roop Narayan Verma And Others on 7 July, 2011 cites

General Auto Agencies, Jaipur vs Hazari Singh on 7 March, 1977

Therefore, whenever summons is issued to a defendant, it must accompany a copy of the plaint or a concise statement. It has been held by the various single Bench decisions of this Court and other High Courts that when the summons issued did not accompany a copy of the plaint, no doubt the summons indicated the name of the Court, the suit No. 1 and the next date of hearing, as per form prescribed for the summons, but it is not enough compliance of the provisions of the Order 5, Rule 2, C.P.C. The law is that along with the summons, a copy of the plaint should be served as it is very much essential because the purpose of service of a copy of the plaint or if so permitted, of a concise statement thereof, is to bring home to the defendant the knowledge of a particular suit having been instituted against him so that the defendant may know what is the claim brought about by the plaintiff against him and make up the mind against the claim. This is the reason why the law makers have made Rule 2 of Order 5, C.P.C. mandatory by using the word "shall". Accordingly, if the summons is not accompanied by a copy of the plaint, it cannot be said that there is due or valid service on the defendant and that there is no valid service on the defendant, the ex parte decree passed against such a defendant should be set aside (See Bhagirath v. Banwarpal, 1980 Jab LJ 572; Gupta Sahitya Sadan v. Sanchatak, M. P. Pathya Pustak Nigam, (1980) 2 MPWN 157; Laxminarayan v. Rameshwar, 1989 MPRCCJ NOC 12; M. G. Dua v. Ballimal Nawalkishore, AIR 1959 Cal 87; General Punjab 467; Sureshchandra Sarkar v. Gosaidas, AIR 1976 Cal 87, General Auto Agencies, Jaipur v. Hazari Singh, AIR 1977 Rajasthan 180).
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 26 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Laxminarayan S. Sharma vs Rameshwar R. Khandelwal on 16 January, 1989

Therefore, whenever summons is issued to a defendant, it must accompany a copy of the plaint or a concise statement. It has been held by the various single Bench decisions of this Court and other High Courts that when the summons issued did not accompany a copy of the plaint, no doubt the summons indicated the name of the Court, the suit No. 1 and the next date of hearing, as per form prescribed for the summons, but it is not enough compliance of the provisions of the Order 5, Rule 2, C.P.C. The law is that along with the summons, a copy of the plaint should be served as it is very much essential because the purpose of service of a copy of the plaint or if so permitted, of a concise statement thereof, is to bring home to the defendant the knowledge of a particular suit having been instituted against him so that the defendant may know what is the claim brought about by the plaintiff against him and make up the mind against the claim. This is the reason why the law makers have made Rule 2 of Order 5, C.P.C. mandatory by using the word "shall". Accordingly, if the summons is not accompanied by a copy of the plaint, it cannot be said that there is due or valid service on the defendant and that there is no valid service on the defendant, the ex parte decree passed against such a defendant should be set aside (See Bhagirath v. Banwarpal, 1980 Jab LJ 572; Gupta Sahitya Sadan v. Sanchatak, M. P. Pathya Pustak Nigam, (1980) 2 MPWN 157; Laxminarayan v. Rameshwar, 1989 MPRCCJ NOC 12; M. G. Dua v. Ballimal Nawalkishore, AIR 1959 Cal 87; General Punjab 467; Sureshchandra Sarkar v. Gosaidas, AIR 1976 Cal 87, General Auto Agencies, Jaipur v. Hazari Singh, AIR 1977 Rajasthan 180).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1