The court upheld the necessity of proper service in civil proceedings and affirmed the principles for calculating compensation for personal injury, emphasizing the victim's right to reparation.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been directed against Order dated 11^th July 2018, passed by 2^nd Additional District Judge, Srinagar (for short “Trial Court”) in an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure in File no.62/Misc titled as Director General of Police v. Yawar Ahmad Bhat and another, as also against ex parte judgement and decree dated 6^th February 2017 passed in a Civil Suit for Declaration and Mandatory Injunction, bearing File no.16/COS titled as Yawar Ahmad Bhat v. State of J&K and another, and for setting-aside the same.

2. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter.

3. It is a submission of appellants that compensation/damages calculated by Trial Court has wrongly been computed inasmuch as it is exaggerated/inflated and completely even on higher side; that impugned ex parte judgement and decree has been passed in hot haste by Trial Court without seeking and/or ensuring filing of written statement by defendants inasmuch as they have neither been summoned nor served in the manner provided under relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Both disputed facts and questions of law have been raised and urged in the suit which required participation of defendants/ appellants so that issues provided under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC would have been framed; that the injury claimed to have been caused to plaintiff, Yawar Ahmad Bhat, had taken place as early as on 30^th June 2009, allegedly by teargas shell, but suit was filed after about 3 ‰ years and the Trial Court has not lost time in setting defendants ex parte on 22^nd May 2014 that too without ascertaining as to whether defendants had knowledge of proceedings; that there is no record available showing that defendants were summoned and made known of pendency of proceedings; that in fact Trial Court seems to have been influenced by some report of SSP, Srinagar, allegedly accepting therein that plaintiff had received injuries due to teargas shell fired by police; that without commenting upon merits of the case/suit, appellants say and submit that they were not summoned in the manner provided under law; that Trial Court has not ascertained from Postal Department for verifying the fact if defendants were really served or not and before proceeding ex parte against defendants, the Trial Court has not appreciated that Acknowledgement Due (AD) was necessary requirement for service through registered post; that impugned judgement is bad in law as it has been passed without affording adequate and sufficient opportunity of hearing to appellants, which has caused miscarriage of justice; that while holding that defendants had enough knowledge of pendency of suit as they were set ex parte after two years after summons were issued to them and that summons were duly served to defendants through S.O. Tamilat, the Trial Court has altogether brushed aside the fact that report of S.O. Tamilat dated 10^th November 2012 clearly revealed that notices had in fact not been served upon defendants as their offices were operating at Jammu and as such it was duty of the Court to ensure that summons were served against proper receipt so that defendants got a chance to participate in the proceedings; that while dismissing application filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, the Trial Court has gone to the extent of holding that defendants were served through registered post as well on 7^th November 2013 and 3^rd February 2014, but the Trial Court did not appreciate the very important argument that the acknowledgement receipt may be called from the Postal Department for verifying the fact if defendants were really served or not; that the case involved in the plaint is of such nature that appellants are necessarily to be given a chance to defend their case because the matter involve not only disputed facts/material but also questions of law are required to be decided by framing issues.

4. A civil suit for declaration and mandatory injunction was filed by respondent/pla