Back
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Santanu Das And S/o- Late Dhiraj Das – Appellant
Versus
Kalpana Hazarika, W/o Late Prabhat Hazarika – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the Code) challenging the order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup (M) Guwahati in Misc. Appeal No.09/2014 whereby the order dated 19.03.2014 passed in Misc.(J) Case No.384/2013 by the learned Munsiff No.3, Kamrup(M) Guwahati was set aside.
2. The brief facts which led to the filing of the instant proceeding is that the petitioners herein had filed a suit being Title Suit No.263/2010 seeking eviction of the defendant from the tenanted premises on the ground that the defendant failed to pay the rent for the tenanted premises from August, 2009. In the said suit, upon summons being issued, the process server went to the address mentioned in the summons, but did not find the defendant. Thereupon the process server met the son of the defendant, but he refused to accept the summons and accordingly the process server affixed the summons at the door of the premises of the defendant in presence of a witness.
3. Pursuant thereto, the process server submitted a report on 23.12.2011 along with an affidavit on 02.01.2012. On the basis of the said process server’s report
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.
Compliance with the procedures for serving summons properly as required under Order V Rule 19 of CPC and the need to give the defendant a fair opportunity to defend the suit on merits.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for setting aside an ex-parte decree, the defendant must prove that the summons was not duly served and demonstrate sufficient cause for non-a....
Setting aside ex-parte decree – Defendant has to show and satisfy that summons of suit was not duly served and that defendant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when suit was called upo....
The court established that improper service of summons, particularly when the defendant is expected to return shortly, invalidates an ex parte decree, necessitating its setting aside.
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....
Proper service of summons must adhere to the provisions of the CPC, and a party cannot benefit from their own negligence in failing to provide accurate contact information, which affects the validity....
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
