Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.21 seconds)Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Kuldip Rai vs Sharan Singh (Deceased By Lrs) And Ors. on 15 February, 1989
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
M/S. Neerja Realtors Pvt. Ltd. vs Janglu (Dead) Thr. Lr on 29 January, 2018
12. Further, it is also fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Neerja Realtors Pvt. Ltd., versus Janglu (Dead)
.
Smt. Yallawwa vs Smt. Shantavva on 8 October, 1996
"We have carefully considered the aforesaid rival contentions. In
order to appreciate the main grievance of the appellant against the
impugned order of the High Court, it is necessary to note at the
outset that the respondent was seeking to get the order of the Trial
Court dismissing her application under Order IX Rule 13 C.PC.
quashed by the High Court. It is true that she moved a revision
application for that purpose but the order of the Trial Court refusing
to set aside the ex parte decree was clearly appealable under
Order XLIII Rule 1(d) C.P.C. which provides that an appeal shall lie
from the orders listed in the said provision and in clause (d) is
mentioned an order under Rule 13 if Order IX rejecting an
application (in a case open to appeal) for an order to set aside a
decree granting divorce under Section 13(1)(i-b) whether ex parte
or bipartite is a decree which is appealable under Section 28 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Consequently, the order of the Trial
Court refusing to set aside such an ex parte decree and rejecting
the application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. could have been
validly made the subject-matter of an appeal under order XLIII Rule
1(d). Therefore, the revision application filed by the respondent
before the High Court should be treated in substance as one by
way of miscellaneous appeal. Once the High Court has appellate
jurisdiction over the impugned order of the Learned Trail Judge, it is
obvious that the High Court was fully competent to interfere with
the order by re-appreciation the facts of the case. The learned
Single Judge had doubt that respondent being an illiterate lady
living in a different town could not have known through the
newspaper that her husband head filed a divorce petition against
her and, therefore, she had no knowledge about the divorce
petition. Consequently, the ex parte decree could be treated as one
passed against the party which was not served and which had no
knowledge about the said proceedings. The learned counsel for the
respondent was also justified in submitting that the Trail Court
could not have almost automatically granted the application for
substituted service without taking steps for serving the respondent
by ordinary procedure as laid down by order V Rules 12, 15 and 17
C.P.C. It must be kept in view that substituted service has to be
restored as the last resort when the defendant cannot be served in
the ordinary was and the court is satisfied that there is reason to
believe that the defendant is keeping out of the way for the purpose
of avoiding service, or that for any other reason the summons
cannot be served in the ordinary way. In the present case, it
appears that almost automatically the procedure of substituted
service was restored to. It is also clear from the record of the case
that respondent being an illiterate lady would not have known about
Section 28 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Sant Kaur vs Khazan Singh And Ors. on 28 April, 1989
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
Smt. Ishro vs Sarmukh Singh And Ors. on 23 November, 1989
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
Pritpal Singh Bhatia vs Kulwant Singh on 8 November, 2011
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