GAUHATI HIGH COURT
D. N. BARUAH, J.
Sushil Kumar Saha -Appellant
Versus
Juran Chandra Saha -Respondent
Civil Revn. No. 114 of 1987
Decided On : 06-08-1992
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - ORDER V RULE 17 - SERVICE OF SUMMONS - AFFIXING COPY OF SUMMONS ON OUTER DOOR - CONDITIONS PRECEDENT - STRICT COMPLIANCE NECESSARY - FAILURE TO COMPLY - SERVICE OF SUMMONS INVALID - EX PARTE DECREE SET ASIDE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an ex parte decree passed against him on the ground that the summons was not duly served on him. The petitioner claimed that he was not at his residence at the time of service and that no person resided along with him in his residence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the summons was not duly served on the petitioner. The court noted that the process server had served the summons immediately after two days of filing the suit, and that the court had accepted it without further enquiry. The court also noted that the process server had claimed to have served the summons on the petitioner as he was identified by the wife of the opposite party, but that the two other witnesses who were present were a close relation of the opposite party and another person against whom a case was pending.
Issues: Whether the summons was duly served on the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the service of summons was invalid because the process server had not complied with the conditions precedent set out in Order V Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The court noted that the process server had not made an endorsement in the original summons a return stating the time when and the manner in which the summons was served, and that the court had not examined the process server on oath to ascertain whether the summons was duly served or not.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and set aside the ex parte decree.
This revision is directed against the appellate judgment dated 23-2-87 passed by the Assistant District Judge, Dhubri in Misc. Appeal No. 12 of 1986, dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 24-2-86 passed by the First Munsiff, Dhubri in Misc. (J) Case No. 76 of 1984, arising out of Title Suit No. 689 of 1982.
2. The opposite party filed a suit for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land and for recovery of khas possession. In usual course summons was issued to the petitioner. The suit was filed on 25-11-82 and the summons was served on 27-11-82 by hanging. The Process Server served summons as identified by the wife of the opposite party and when the summons was tendered to the petitioner he refused to accept the same, accordingly, he affixed a copy of the summons on the main door of his house. A copy of the summons was returned by the Process Server with his report. As per the said report, the petitioner refused to accept the same. No independent and disinterested witness was present at the time of service of summons by hanging. After such service of summons, the case was put up on 22-12-82 as fixed earlier and the Munsiff on the basis of the said report accepted the summons and ordered to proceed the suit ex parte. Thereafter the suit was decreed ex parte. On coming to know about the ex parte decree, the petitioner filed a petition under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree on the ground that the summons was not served on him, in fact, the petitioner was not at his residence at that time and no person resided along with him in his residence.
3. The opposite party examined four witnesses, viz; his wife, the process server and two others. The petitioner examined himself and an another witness. After appreciating the evidence, the Munsiff disbelieved the case of the petitioner and rejected the petition for setting aside the ex parte decree. An appeal was preferred before the Asstt. District Judge and the Asstt District Judge also affirmed the judgment holding that the petitioner failed to establish his case that the summons was not duly served on him. The Appellate Court after appreciating the evidence held that the story told by the opposite party is correct and, therefore, it cannot be said that the summons was not served.
4. Order V of CPC prescribes various modes for service of summons. Under Order V Rule 12 of CPC - "wherever it is practicable, service shall be made on the defendant in person, unless he has an agent empowered to accept service, in which case service on such agent shall be sufficient." Again under Rule 17 prescribes the procedure when defendant refuses to accept service, or cannot be found. Order V Rule 17 runs thus:-
"Where the defendant or his agent or such other person as aforesaid refuses to sign the acknowledgment, or where the serving officer, after using all due and reasonable diligence, cannot find the defendant who is absent from his residence at the time when service is sought to be effected an him at his residence and there is no likelihood of his being found at the residence within a reasonable time and there is no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, nor any other person on whom service can be made, the serving officer shall affix a copy of the summons on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the defendant ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, and shall then return the original to the Court from which it was issued, with a report endorsed thereon or annexed thereto stating that he has so affixed the copy, the circumstances under which he did so, and the name and address of the person (if any) by whom the house was identified and in whose presence the copy was affixed."
5. After service of summons in the manner prescribed under Rule 17 of Order V, the Serving Officer is required to make an endorsement in the original summons a return statin
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.