Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Asha Menon, JJ.
Rohit Sharma - Appellant
Versus
A.M. Market Place Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
FAO(OS)(COMM) 37 of 2021 & CM Appls. 8493-8495 of 2021
Decided On : 03-03-2021
Service of process via prescribed modes, including speed post, constitutes valid notice. Non-filing of a written statement within 120 days leads to forfeiture of that right.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order IX Rule 7 - Condonation of delay - Appeal challenging ex parte order - The appellant filed an application to set aside an ex parte order due to claimed lack of knowledge regarding the suit's pendency. The court imposed a cost of Rs.30,000/- but held that the appellant's opportunity to file a written statement was closed. The court ruled that service by speed post deemed proper; absence of supporting evidence weakens appellant's claims. (Paras 1, 4, 10, 12, 16)
(B) Evidence - Service of Summons - The respondent's claim that summons were served via postal service, returned with a refusal note, was upheld and deemed effective without further notice required by law. (Paras 8, 12)
(C) Time Limits - The court emphasized that non-filing of the written statement within 120 days results in forfeiture of the right to file, supported by statutory provisions of CPC. (Para 16)
(D) Judgment’s Preservation - Orders of lower courts observed to be logical sequiturs of earlier unchallenged service affirmations. (Paras 14, 16)
Findings of Court:
The order for recall is upheld on condition of payment of costs; dismissal of appeal affirms legal compliance on service standards.
Issues: The court addressed whether proper service was performed and the timing of the written statement filing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the means of service were adequate for proceeding ex parte, reinforcing the mandatory nature of the 120-day timeline for filing written statements.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to order for recalling proceedings. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on service of summons. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. details on serving summons and compliance. (Para 7 , 8 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court's reasoning on mandatory compliance with procedure. (Para 9 , 10 , 13 , 14 , 16) |
| 5. final dismissal of the appeal. (Para 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral):--The appeal has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 14th January, 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of IA No.7667/2019 in CS (COMM) No. 1055/2018 filed under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC by appellant-defendant No.1 for recall of the order whereby the Trial Court decided to proceed ex parte against the appellant-defendant No.1. The appeal is accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay of 263 days in refiling the appeal.
3. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order imposed cost of Rs.30,000/- for setting aside the order dated 19th December, 2018 to the extent that the Court had proceeded ex parte against the appellant-defendant No.1. However, the learned Single Judge held that appellant-defendant No.1's right to file written statement was closed. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 14th January, 2020 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"3. The present application seeking recall of order dated December 19, 2018 reads as under:
"4. That the applicant/Defendant No.1 could not appear on 19.12.2018 as it had no knowledge about the pendency of the instant suit. The non presence of the applicant was neither deliberate nor intentional. The Hon'ble Court has passed an order to proceed ex-parte against the applicant vide order dated 19.12.2018.
5. That the instant application is being filed for recalling/setting aside of order dated 19.12.2018 to proceed ex-parte against the applicant/Defendant No.1 on the ground that he had no knowledge about the filing and pendency of the case and the summons of the court were never delivered on the applicant or any member of his family and further that no summons have been issued by the Court in the State of Uttar Pradesh under Section 28 of CPC. It is further submitted that the order to presume service on the applicant is erroneous and subsequent order passed on the basis of such presumed service to precede ex- parte is also liable to be recalled in the interest of justice.
6. That it is respectfully submitted that no such summon was ever came at the residence of the applicant and his mother never came to know about any summons and she never refused to receive the postal envelop.
7. That it appear that Plaintiff with a view to get favourable order from the Court managed the postal department and got the noting of refusal even though no such postal article was ever given or tried to be given to the mother of the applicant."
4. The averments made in the application are not at all inspiring. In fact, by way of this application, defendant no.1 is casting aspersion on the postal authority. The application does not disclose the fact as to how defendant no.1 came to know about the pendency of these proceedings. In fact, it is argued, that the postman had not come. No supporting affidavit of the plaintiff's mother has been filed. Be that as it may, as this application is only for recall of order dated December 19, 2018, in the interest of justice and subject to the condition that the defendant no. 1 shall pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- to the plaintiff, the order dated December 19, 2018 is recalled. It may be clarified here that as the defendant no.1 has not filed the written statement within the stipulated period of 120 days, he has lost the opportunity to file the same. The application is allowed to the aforesaid extent. The cost shall be paid within a period of four weeks.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant No.1 states that no summons were served or tried to be served on the appellant-defendant No.1 and alleged refusal of the appellant-de
