Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
Girish Mittal – Appellant
Versus
Prateek Madhan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. recall of ex-parte order. (Para 1 , 2 , 10) |
| 2. grounds for recall of the order. (Para 3 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. evidence of residence at chhatarpur property. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. summary suit context. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 5. interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 6. final order allowing the application. (Para 34 , 35) |
JUDGMENT
(VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING)
I.A. 7268/2020 (Under Order IX Rule 7 read with Order XXXVII Rule 2(3) read with Rule 3(7) and Section 151 CPC by the Defendants)
1. The present application has been filed under Order IX Rule 7 read with Order XXXVII Rule 2(3) read with Rule 3(7) and Section 151 CPC seeking recall of the order dated 31.07.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the `impugned order') whereby the defendants were proceeded ex-parte.
2. The defendants have sought recall of the impugned order primarily on the ground that the defendants were never served with the summons in the suit for the reason that at the relevant time, the defendants were not staying at the address mentioned in the memo of parties.
3. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the present application has been filed within limitation.
4. It is claimed that although the
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' for non-appearance of the defendants under Order XXXVII CPC and the importance of giving the correct addre....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of proper service of summons and the defendant's right to set aside an ex-parte decree by presenting a satisfactory reason in cour....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of proper service of summons as per the requirements of Order V Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The legal point established is that in cases of service of summons, the burden of proof lies with the party contesting the service, and unrebutted evidence can influence the court's decision.
The declaration of the process server, duly endorsed by the Nazir, in view of the amended provision of Order 5 Rule 19 A of the CPC, is admissible as evidence of the service or attempted service of t....
Order V Rule 19 of CPC, mandates that before declaring fact that summons have been duly served, it was obligatory for this Court to examine Process Server, on oath, as requisite affidavit has not bee....
The High Court, exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot reappreciate the evidence or substitute its subjective opinion in place of the finding....
The absence of clear evidence of service of summons necessitates setting aside an ex parte decree, emphasizing the right to due process and the opportunity to contest claims.
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
