ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Court below dismissing IA No. 394 of 2000 filed by the wife of defendant No. 2 in IA No. 382 of 2000 in OS No. 144 of 2000.

( 2 ) THE petitioner herein filed IA No. 394 of 2000 not to extend the injunction order granted earlier and the same be dropped on the ground that her husband who is defendant No. 2 in the suit left to Gulf Country on 7-11-2000; that the suit filed for permanent injunction in respect of house bearing No. 6-5, Shathrajpalli village, Vemulavada Mandal against defendant No. 2 is not maintainable on the ground that the service of summons, notices and injunction order on the petitioner herein are not valid service.

( 3 ) THE suit was filed on 16-11-2000 and on the same day, the Court below granted temporary injunction and ordered notice. The process server who was entrusted with the service of injunction orders, notice and summons reported that it was represented to him that the 2nd defendant who is the husband of the petitioner herein is out of India and left to Dubai and therefore he requested his wife to receive the summons and injunction order and accordingly it was served on her. Now the present petition is filed by the wife of the 2nd defendant styling herself as 3rd party to the suit stating that her husband left India on 7-11-2000 and therefore herself and her two minor children are residing in the suit premises and that on 18-11-2000, the Court process server came to her house along with the plaintiff and made enquiries about her husband and that she informed them that he left the country and refused to receive the Court order but the process server forcibly entrusted the process/injunction order and obtained her signature. The plaintiff-1st respondent who was the mother of the 2nd defendant and mother-in-law of the petitioner herein is aware that the 2nd defendant was not in India when the suit was filed and therefore no injunction order can be granted against him and accordingly TA No. 382 of 2000 filed by the plaintiff may be dismissed for want of cause of action.

( 4 ) THE 1st respondent filed counter stating that she is not aware of the 2nd defendant in the suit going out of India. But on 20-10-2000 the 2nd defendant caused interference and threatened to dispossess her from the suit property and therefore she filed the suit and the interlocutory application and the Court granted interim injunction in her favour.

( 5 ) THE petitioner contended that the service of notices, summons and injunction order on her by force by the Court process server under threat is against the rules and procedure contemplated under Order 5, Rule 25 CPC. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent argued that Order 5, Rule 15 CPC prescribes the procedure for service of Court summons and notices and accordingly the summons and notices were served on the female adult member of the family and in the instant case the petitioner is no other than the wife of respondent No. 2 in the suit and hence the service of summons, notices and orders of the Court are correct and therefore the petition filed by the wife of respondent No. 2 is not maintainable more so in view of the fact that the petitioner has not taken any steps to come on record in the suit to safeguard the interest of her husband.

( 6 ) ON appreciation of the arguments advanced by both the parties, the Court below held that since the petitioner failed to furnish the address of the defendant who is in Dubai to cause service of injunction order and notice on him, the service of summons, notices and injunction order on the petitioner are valid service and there is no infirmity in serving them. Further, the Court cannot recall its own order in the absence of any valid reason. Accordingly the petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed.

( 7 ) SRI P. V. Narayan Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document