Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.19 seconds)Section 96 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Sushil Kumar Sabharwal vs Gurpreet Singh And Ors on 23 April, 2002
In the matter of Sushil
Kumar Sabharwal (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on
second proviso of Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. with regard to
setting aside of exparte decree from Central Legislation, which
reads as under :
Indu Bhushan à ..Appellant vs Munna Lal And Anr. à .Respondents on 2 February, 2007
5. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on the case
of Indu Bhushan Vs. Munna Lal & anr., reported in [2007] 2
Scale 514. Referring to the judgment, the counsel submitted
that, in that matter also there were multiple reports of process
server which were disputed. It has been submitted that, in that
matter also no material was placed before Trial Court or High
Court that the endorsements made by the process server were
false. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had relied on Order V Rule 9
of the C.P.C. and declined to interfere. According to the counsel,
Order V Rule 9 of C.P.C. in sub-clause (5) recognizes report of
the postal authority as well as courier regarding refusal without
insisting for affixing of summons and thus, according to the
counsel, in the present matter also there is no reason why the
service should not be held as good service.
Kunja vs Lalaram And Ors. on 11 February, 1986
Reliance was placed on the case of Kunja Vs. Lalaram & ors.,
reported in AIR 1987 Madhya Pradesh 252 to submit that there
was additional provision under Order V Rule 19 that the Court
has jurisdiction to examine the serving officer, even if the report
is supported by affidavit. On the basis of above arguments, the
learned counsel submitted that the District Court should have
allowed the appeal and should have set aside the judgment and
decree of the trial Court.
1