Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)
Smt. Sunita vs Smt. Shakila Bi And 4 Ors. on 30 July, 2018 cites

Jagdish Singh vs Natthu Singh on 25 November, 1991

"8. In the case in hand, we find that there was no M.A. Nos.2502 of 2011 2 service of the summons. True, there is a presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, that when a document is sent under registered cover and on that, there is an endorsement of refusal by addressee to accept, the notice must be presumed to have been served and service shall be deemed to be a valid service unless it is rebutted by legal evidence. See, Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh (AIR 1992SC 1604 : 1992 All LJ 620 : 1992 AIR SCW 174. But, from the closed envelope which was opened in the presence of the parties, it is clear that no copy of petition/plaint was sent to the appellant along with the summons of the petition. Order V, Rule 2, CPC, in mandatory terms provides that every summons shall be accompanied by a copy of the plaint or, if so permitted, by a concise statement. Therefore, 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 that the claim brought about 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 V, CPC mandatory by use of the word "shall". Accordingly, if the summons are not accompanied by a copy of the plaint, it cannot be said that there is due or valid service on the defendant and if there is no valid service, a decree on such defendant has to be set aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 383 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Sushila Bai W/O Ram Nihore Patel vs Ram Nihore Jagatdhari Prasad Patel on 15 October, 1990

See, Raghurajsingh v. Kalyanaprasad (1964 JLJ SN 78) Kranti Kumar Jha v. Dr. J.B. Shrivastava (1978-1 MPWN 443); Mohanlal Brijlal v. Manga 1986 CCLJ N 39), Sushila Bai v. Ram Nihore (1991 MPLJ 229). Therefore, for the above reasons, the Court was having no jurisdiction to proceed ex parte; the error is apparent and the decree so passed is illegal and is liable to be set aside. Even for argument's sake the above grounds relate to invalid service making out a case amounting to sufficient cause, and ought to have been taken in a proceeding under O. IX, Rule 12, CPC, and could not be seen in an appeal under Section 28 of the Act. In that case too, it is not the law that if a defendant fails to appear in response to the notice of summons of the Court, a Court is bound to pass a decree at once or on the evidence adduced by the plaintiff. In an ex parte case also, a plaintiff has to prove his case by producing legal evidence for passing a decree as it is settled that a Court must act on admissible and legal evidence. While considering the evidence, the Court will not be bound to accept the statement of witnesses only because they have not been effectively cross- examined or evidence in rebuttal has not been adduced. A Judge is not a computer. In Civil cases, while assessing the value attached to oral evidence, a Judge has to test the evidence placed before him on the basis of probabilities.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 4 - R C Lahoti - Full Document
1