Back
Sets Aside Decree Against Nirmaljeet Singh as Not Proven
In a ruling that underscores the limits of , the has set aside an decree against Nirmaljeet Singh, holding that mere WhatsApp transmission to a mobile number does not constitute . Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri allowed the appeal, restoring the appellant's right to contest the civil suit subject to payment of Rs.20,000 in costs.
Background of the Dispute
The underlying suit, Civil Suit No.620/2020, was filed by Guljeet Singh (respondent No.1) against Nirmaljeet Singh and others concerning property at 17/6, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. The suit alleged unauthorized construction on the first floor, seepage damage, and obstruction of access. Owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, summons were attempted via electronic mode. When the appellant failed to appear, he was proceeded in , and an decree awarding Rs.10,00,000 in damages and injunctive relief was passed in .
Appellant’s Claim of No Service
Nirmaljeet Singh approached the trial court under seeking to set aside the decree, asserting that he had never been served with summons and had no knowledge of the proceedings. He claimed to have learned of the decree only in through documents received on WhatsApp from respondent No.2. The trial court dismissed his application, holding that he had knowledge of the decree by and that his application was barred by limitation. The court relied on the process server's report regarding .
High Court’s Critical Analysis of
Before the , the appellant argued that the electronic communication could not be treated as . The process server’s report itself recorded that the call was answered by a third person, Amarjeet Singh, who identified himself as a relative and said he would inform the appellant.
Justice Ohri observed that the material did not justify treating the WhatsApp communication as equivalent to conclusive knowledge of the summons. The court distinguished between transmission and actual receipt, noting that the mere association of a mobile number with the appellant was insufficient to prove .
“The existence of the mobile number and the factum of transmission are distinct from proof that the summons were actually received by the appellant. The of the call being answered by a third person, coupled with the appellant's consistent denial of having received the summons, required a more cautious examination.”
The court further emphasized that the appellant’s case regarding how he came to know about the decree could not be rejected solely on an inference drawn from the electronic record.
Reliance on Precedents
The court referred to the ’s decisions in G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada (2000) and Parimal v. Veena @ Bharti (2011), which held that "" for non-appearance must be considered in a manner advancing substantial justice and that discretion under Order IX Rule 13 must be exercised judiciously based on case-specific facts.
The Decision
Allowing the appeal, Justice Ohri set aside the impugned order dated , and allowed the application under . Consequently, the judgment and decree of , were set aside the appellant. The court also set aside the consequential order directing release of Rs.2,00,000 in favor of respondent No.1, with the amount to remain deposited or abide by future orders.
The appellant was directed to pay Rs.20,000 in costs to respondent No.1 within four weeks.
This judgment clarifies that , particularly through WhatsApp, must be carefully examined to establish , especially when the intended recipient denies receipt and the communication is made through a third party.
