R.R.YADAV
Kailash Chand – Appellant
Versus
Hemlata – Respondent
(2). The aforesaid application for setting aside ex parte decree was moved by defendant-appellant on the ground inter alia that there was no service of summons on him before passing the ex parte decree and he has no knowledge about the pendency of the suit before he was served with the notice of execution of ex parte decree. It is also averred in the application for setting aside ex parte decree that suit was instituted on 31.1.81 and summons were ordered to be issued. Next date was fixed 24.2.81 on which date it was recorded by the court that the defendant is not present let service of summons and registered AD be awaited. On 11.3.81 summons by ordinary process were not received however it transpired that the summons alleged to have been sent on the incorrect address of the defendant-appellant by registered post was returned back with the endorsement on the envelop as `refused. The refusal accepted to be sufficient service by the court upon the de
2. Puwada Venkateswara Rao vs. Chidamana Venkata Ramana (AIR 1976 SC 869)
3. Anil Kumar vs. Nanak Chandra Verma (AIR 1990 SC 1215)
4. Vasudeo vs. Mulk Raj Kumar (1980 RLW 407)–Followed
5. Gujarat Electricity Board and another vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani ((1989) 2 SCC 602)
9. Bapayya vs. Venkataratnam (AIR 1953 Mad. 884)
14. Meghji Kanji Patel vs. Kundan Mal Chaman Lal (AIR 1968 Bom. 387)
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.