Actual service of summons by registered post acknowledgment due is valid, even if defendants reside outside jurisdiction, and non-compliance with procedural rules does not equate to no service.

ORDER :

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

Heard Sri Tagore Yadav Yaragorla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms.Hema Bindhu Karuturi, learned counsel representing Ms.G.K.V.D. Kumari, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’) by the defendants being aggrieved from the order, dated 30.09.2024, passed in I.A.No.40 of 2024 in C.O.S.No.8 of 2021 (in short ‘COS’) on the file of the Court of the learned Special Judge for Trial & Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Vijayawada (in short ‘the Special Judge’), dismissing their application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay of 464 days in filing the petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, to set aside the exparte decree dated 18.11.2022 in C.O.S.No.8 of 2021.

3. The plaintiff/respondent-M/s. TGV SRAAC Ltd., (formerly Rayalseema Alkalies and Allied Chemicals Limited) filed C.O.S.No.8 of 2021 for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,31,31,621/- being the outstanding amount due from the petitioners/defendants along with accrued interest and for some other reliefs. The suit was decreed exparte on 18.11.2022. The point for consideration as framed in the suit was answered in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. The learned Special Judge recorded in the judgment that the defendants 1 to 3 (petitioners 1 to 3) received the suit summons through registered post. But, they did not appear, even though the matter was posted for their appearance on 17.9.2021, 05.10.2021 and 02.11.2021. The petitioners/defendants 1 to 3 were set exparte on 02.11.2021. For defendant No.4 (petitioner No.4), it was recorded that he received the suit summons through the Court on 12.05.2022. But, he also failed to appear on 14.06.2022, 28.06.2022 and on 01.07.2022. He was also set exparte on 01.07.2022. The suit, as such, proceeded exparte and was decreed exparte on 18.11.2022, directing the defendants 1 to 4 to pay the plaintiff-company, the suit amount with subsequent interest @ 18% from the date of filing of the suit till the date of the decree and thereafter, @ 12% per annum from the date of the decree till the date of realization of the outstanding balance due amount.

4. The plaintiff/respondent filed E.P.No.477 of 2023 for execution of the decree, in the City Civil Courts, at Ahmadabad. The defendants/judgment debtors were served on the execution petition. They put in appearance on 17.01.2024. Thereafter, on 26.04.2024, they filed I.A.No.40 of 2024 under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act,1963 to condone the delay of 464 days, in filing the application under Order 9 Rule13 CPC for setting aside the exparte decree, dated 18.11.2022.

5. The main plea of the defendants/petitioners was that they did not receive summons of the suit from the Court and got knowledge of passing of the exparte decree when they received notices in E.P.No.477 of 2023, just before the start of second wave of COVID. They requested to condone the delay and accept the petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. 6. The plaintiff/respondent objected, inter alia, on the ground that there were no bonafides and no sufficient cause. Inspite of service of summons, the defendants filed the petition after long delay of 464 days, which could not be condoned.

7. The learned Special Judge, by order, dated 30.09.2024 rejected I.A.No.40 of 2024. It recorded that the summons was served to the defendants 1 to 3 on 07.09.2021. The Court did not set them exparte on that day, and posted the matter to 05.10.2021. On that day also, they were not set exparte and the matter was posed to 02.11.2021. On02.11.2021, the defendants 1 to 3 were set exparte. The defendant No.4 received the suit summons through the Court on 12.05.2022, and after few days, he was also set exparte on 22.07.2022. Finally, the exparte judgment and decree was passed on 18.11.2022. The learned Special Judge recorded that the addresses of the defendants mentioned in the pla