Kailash Kumari Sharma vs Kamla Devi

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Table of Content
1. order under order 9 rule 13 cpc dismissed. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. appellant claims not being tenant and absence of service. (Para 5 , 6)
3. trial court's findings show service was valid. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. documentation challenges the service claims. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. affixation was the final method of serving. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
6. lack of evidence for proper serving. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
7. trial court's obligations unmet during ex parte proceedings. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
8. proviso does not apply due to lack of proper service. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
9. need for evidentiary support in presumption of service. (Para 41 , 42)
10. previous judgments hold no relevance to current facts. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)
11. procedure requires revisiting the trial for evidence. (Para 47 , 48)
12. court reinstates application and directs further action. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54)

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (ORAL)--The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.

2. Appellant impugns order dated 01.04.2021 whereby the application filed by the appellant under Order 9 Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure