Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : GODA RAGHURAM
HARI GOPAL LUNANI - Appellant
Versus
VENKATESWARA SUGAR MILLS - Respondent
Decided On : 06/25/2007
Civil Revision Petition 2259 Of 2007
Code of Civil procedure, 1908 – Order V – Rules 15 and 19 – Service of process – Order of arrest – Revision against – Revision petitioner is the judgment debtor in the suit. As he failed to satisfy the decree, the respondent-decree holder filed the execution petition – By the impugned order Court below recorded that the sale notice was returned with an endorsement that service of summons was effected by affixture on the door, that the revision petitioner was absent though service of process was made and that in the circumstances, arrest warrant be issued against the revision petitioner – The E. P. , was posted for enquiry on 27-07-2007 – Held, There was no service by affixture in accordance with procedural discipline warranted under order V Rules 15 and 19 of Code of Civil procedure, 1908 (CPC), no affidavit certifying affixture on revision petitioners door was filed by process server concerned and in context of such an affidavit not having been made by the process server, no examination on oath of the serving officer was recorded by the Court concerned as is required by Order V Rule 19 of CPC – Learned counsel for respondent-decree holder, concedes that there has been a violation of mandatory provisions of Order V Rule 19 of CPC and that no service of summons could be stated to have been effected justifying issuance of a warrant of arrest against revision petitioner – Revision petition allowed.
( 2 ) THE Revision petitioner is the judgment debtor in the suit. As he failed to satisfy the decree, the respondent-decree holder filed the execution petition. By the impugned order, dated 30-04-2007, the Court below recorded that the sale notice was returned with an endorsement that service of summons was effected by affixture on the door, that the revision petitioner was absent though service of process was made and that in the circumstances, arrest warrant be issued against the revision petitioner. The E. P. , was posted for enquiry on 27-07-2007.
( 3 ) THE principal ground of attack on this order by the revision petitioner is that there was no service by affixture in accordance with the procedural discipline warranted under order V Rules 15 and 19 of Code of Civil procedure, 1908 (CPC), no affidavit certifying affixture on the revision petitioners door was filed by the process server concerned and in the context of such an affidavit not having been made by the process server, no examination on oath of the serving officer was recorded by the Court concerned as is required by Order V Rule 19 of CPC.
( 4 ) SRI C. C. S. Sastry, the learned counsel for the respondent-decree holder, concedes that there has been a violation of mandatory provisions of Order V Rule 19 of CPC and that no service of summons could be stated to have been effected justifying issuance of a warrant of arrest against the revision petitioner.
( 5 ) IN the light of the aforementioned concession by the learned counsel for the respondent, the revision petition requires to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The order, dated 30-04-2007, passed by the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru in e. P. No. 31 of 2007 in O. S. No. 103 of 1982 is quashed. The amount deposited by the revision petitioner pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, dated 23-05-2007,shall be refunded. No 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
