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.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer in Rev.Appl.No.125 of 2019 : Review Application is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the order dated 12.02.2019 in CMA.No.2834 of 2018, passed before this Court.

Prayer in Rev.Appl.No.126 of 2019 : Review Application is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the order dated 12.02.2019 in CRP(NPD).No.3819 of 2018, passed before this Court.)

Common Judgment:

These Review Applications have been filed to review the common order dated 12.02.2019 made in CMA. No. 2834 of 2018 & CRP (NPD). No.3819 of 2018 passed by this Court.-

2. The petitioner in CRP. No. 3819 of 2018 as well as CMA. No. 2834 of 2018 has preferred these Review applications by contending that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the common order passed by this Court. It is further stated that this Court did not consider the mandate under Order V Rule 19 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short CPC), in its proper perspective which led to dismissal of the CRP. No. 3819 of 2018 as well as CMA. No. 2834 of 2018 and it warrants a review.

3. Notice has been served on the learned counsel for the respondent in the CRP (NPD) No. 3819 of 2018 and CMA No. 2834 of 2018.

4. The learned Senior counsel for the review petitioner argues that the Review Applicant is the defendant in the suit filed by the respondent herein, as plaintiff, for the relief of specific performance of the agreement. While dismissing the above revision, the learned Judge failed to appreciate the requirements contemplated under Order V Rule 19 of CPC, which is mandatory in nature. As per the said provision, whenever notice is served by affixure, the procedures contemplated therein have to be followed. Further he argues that the learned Judge failed to appreciate that the question of delay would not arise in the case in filing an application for setting aside the ex-parte order especially when the mandate of the provision of Order V Rule 19 has not been complied with, and therefore the revision petition as well as the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal ought not to have been dismissed on the ground of delay, rather the delay ought to have been condoned. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed a serious error in relying upon the judgment reported in (2012) 5 SCC 157 rendered by the Hon-ble Supreme Court, which deals with the question of sufficiency of cause shown for condonation of delay hence, it will not apply to the facts of the present case, especially when, the mandatory provision laid down in Order V Rule 19 and Order XLVIII Rule 2 has not been complied with. Therefore the learned Senior counsel prays to Review the common order passed by this Court in CMA.No.2834 of 2018 & CRP.No.3819 of 2018.

5. By way of reply the learned counsel for the respondent submits that while dismissing the CMA.No.2834 of 2018 & CRP.No.3819 of 2018, the learned Judge has elaborately discussed the facts and circumstance of the case as well as applicability of provisions of law with regard to the service of the summons. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the order was passed on merits which needs no interference by this Court nor there is error on the face of the record in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Judge was satisfied that summons were duly served on the review applicant and he has knowledge about the institution of the suit for specific performance. While so, the review applicant cannot feign ignorance about the pendency of the suit against him. This was appreciated by the learned Judge in detail while passing the common order dismissing the CMA.No.2834 of 2018 & CRP.No.3819 of 2018. Hence he prays to dismiss the Review Applications as devoid of merits.

6. Heard the submissions of the counsel for both sides in CRP. No. 3819 of 2018 and CMA. No. 2834 of 2018.

7. The respondent herein has instituted the suit in O.S. No. 95 of 2009 f