SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Del) 1012

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
Satya Pal Jain – Appellant
Versus
Kailash Wati Goel – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Shashi Bhushan, Adv.
Mr. Vijay Sharma, Adv.

1. The landlady/widow filed a petition under Section 14D of DRC Act for eviction of the petitioner. Notice of this petition was sent to the respondent through registered covers as well as through ordinary process and UPC. As per the report of the process server, the respondent refused to receive the notice. He was then served through substituted service. Still no leave to defend was filed. So, the learned ARC passed an eviction order in respect of the premises on 8th October, 2002. A copy of the eviction order was also directed to be sent to the tenant. The tenant thereafter moved an application under Order 37 Rule 4 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside this ex parte order alleging therein that he was never served with the summons and summons were not tendered either by post or through process server and he had not refused summons issued by the Court. He learnt about the case only on 4th December, 2002 when he came back from Punjab and found that some summons had come to the house in his absence from the Court for 18th November, 2002. The respondent then immediately contacted his counsel and directed him to do the needful who after enquiry came to know that the notice of











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top