Back
RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY
Ravishankar Shukla S/o Late Gajadhar Prasad Shukla – Appellant
Versus
Pratima Mishra W/o Keshav Prasad Mishra – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without adhering to the provisions given under Order 5 Rule 17 of CPC, the learned trial Court passed the order for substituted service of summons which is not permissible. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Tulsi Bai Vs. Mukesh Kumar, reported in 2014 (3) CGLJ, 316.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff would submit that the petitioner/defendant No.1 was avoiding service of summons, therefore, an application was moved for substituted service and same was allowed and thus, it may be presumed that summons was duly served upon defendant No.1. He would further submit that in the execution proceedings summons was served. Apparently, summons vide Annexure R 1/2 dated 14.11.2010 shows the signature of the petitioner/defendant No.1 and this fact has been observed by the learned trial Court as well as learned appellate Court whereas the same has been suppressed by the petitioner in this petition, therefore, there is no scope of interference and there is concurrent finding recorded by courts below, thus the petition preferred by the petitioner deserves to b
The procedural requirement to affix summons at a defendant's residence upon inability to effect personal service is mandatory. Substituted service via publication cannot be resorted to unless these f....
Ex-parte proceedings – Personal service of summons/notice in ordinary way is a rule and substituted service is an exception – Before passing any order for substituted service on the basis of material....
Mandatory service requirements under Order V Rule 17 must be strictly followed; failure to do so invalidates ex-parte proceedings.
Substituted service of summons through publication is only permissible when proper procedures are followed; failure to do so invalidates ex-parte judgments.
Substituted service of summons via publication is invalid without exhausting regular service methods under CPC.
Proper service of summons must adhere to the provisions of the CPC, and a party cannot benefit from their own negligence in failing to provide accurate contact information, which affects the validity....
Substituted service under Order 5 Rule 20 CPC must be justified with sufficient grounds, and should only be ordered as a last resort after exhausting other service methods.
The main legal point established is that the trial court must ensure proper service of summons and comply with the legal requirements for substituted service.
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
