Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.N. KHARE, N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.
Jarnail Singh - Appellant
Versus
Mohinder Kaur - Respondent
Civil Appeal No 1148 of 2001. (Arising out of SLP No.10015 of 2000)
Decided on : 09-02-2001
Substituted Service - Notice Publication - Setting Aside Ex-Parte Decree
Fact of the Case:
The defendant-appellant filed an application to set aside an ex-parte decree, stating that they had no knowledge of the notice published in a newspaper with no circulation in their village. The trial court and higher courts rejected the application, leading to the appellant's appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notice published in the newspaper with no circulation in the appellant's village did not constitute sufficient service. The appellant had no notice of the suit, and thus, made out sufficient cause for setting aside the ex-parte decree and the appellate and revisional orders.
Issues: The main issue was whether the publication of notice in a newspaper approved for substituted service by the High Court, but with no circulation in the appellant's village, constituted sufficient service on the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without a finding that the newspaper had circulation in the appellant's village, the appellant had no notice of the suit, and thus, made out sufficient cause for setting aside the ex-parte decree and the appellate and revisional orders.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the lower courts, and directed the trial court to proceed with the suit after giving the appellant an opportunity.
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The plaintiff - respondent filed a suit for possession. On 27.11.89, the suit was decreed as the defendant - appellant did not appear. On 5.10.91, the defendant - appellant moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 27.11.89. In the said application, it was stated that the appellant had no knowledge of the notice alleged to have been published in the daily newspaper 'Ranjit' printed and published from Patiala. It was also stated that the said newspaper had no circulation in village Badheri, Chandigarh where the defendant - appellant resides. However, the trial Court rejected the said application. Thereafter the appellant preferred a miscellaneous appeal before the District Judge, Chandigarh, which was also dismissed. A revision filed before the High Court also met with the same fate. Aggrieved with the said order, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
3. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. The High court was of the view that since the newspaper daily 'Ranjit' printed and published from Patiala is approved by the High Court for purposes of substituted service, the publication of notice in the said newspaper was sufficient service on the appellant. The case of the appellant was that daily newspaper 'Ranjit' has no circulation at all in village Badheri, Chandigarh. The High Court has not recorded any finding that daily newspaper 'Ranjit' published from Patiala has circulation in Chandigarh. In absence of such finding we are of the view that the appellant has no notice of the suit. The appellant has made out sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte decree as well as the appellate and revisional orders. For the aforesaid reasons we set aside the judgment of the court's below. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the suit after giving opportunity to the appellant.
The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
