Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Ananda Naik (Since Dead), through his LRS. – Appellant
Versus
Pramila Majhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of revision under section 115 of cpc. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. background of the original suit and procedural history. (Para 4 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. arguments regarding service of notices and defendants' knowledge. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. legal requirement for service of summons. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. importance of lawful service of summons as per cpc. (Para 15 , 18 , 21) |
| 6. advocacy for ensuring justice over technicalities. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 7. final judgment allowing revision in part. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
JUDGMENT :
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.
1. This revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C, 1908 has been filed by the petitioner praying for setting aside the final order dated 07.04.2021 passed in FAO No.11 of 2020 by the learned District Judge, Malkangiri.
2. After the death of the Petitioner during the pendency of this revision, his LRs have been substituted in his place as Petitioner Nos.1(a) to 1(f). The Opposite Party No.1 in this revision was the Appellant in FAO No.11 of 2020. The Opposite Party Nos.2 to 5 in this revision were the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 in that FAO No.11 of 2020.
3. FAO No.11 of 2020 was preferred by the Opposite Party No.1 of this revision challenging
Service of summons must be lawful and proper; mere knowledge of a suit is insufficient without adequate notice to uphold principles of natural justice.
Mandatory service requirements under Order V Rule 17 must be strictly followed; failure to do so invalidates ex-parte proceedings.
The main legal point established is that the trial court must ensure proper service of summons and comply with the legal requirements for substituted service.
The High Court, exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot reappreciate the evidence or substitute its subjective opinion in place of the finding....
The court emphasized the necessity of effective service of summons and adherence to procedural mandates in civil proceedings.
Defendants must demonstrate sufficient cause for absence in ex-parte proceedings; mere claims of ignorance or improper service do not suffice.
The legal point established is that the process server's reports must be witnessed, and the court must record satisfaction of 'deemed' service. The petitioner should have been given an opportunity to....
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....
Substituted service of summons through publication is only permissible when proper procedures are followed; failure to do so invalidates ex-parte judgments.
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
