Back
1985 Supreme(P&H) 287
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
J.V.Gupta, J.
Kundan Singh
Versus
Gurnam Singh
Second Appeal Order No. 66 of 1984,
Decided On : MAY 22, 1985
The mandatory nature of the notice requirement under Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C. and the potential for grave injustice in its absence.
Headnote:
Order 1 Rule 8 - Notice Requirement - The court found that the trial court's failure to comply with the mandatory notice requirement of Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C. resulted in non-compliance and grave injustice, leading to the setting aside of the decree and remand for fresh decision.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration in a representative capacity after filing an application under O.1, R.8, Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court did not issue notices for the institution of the suit to all the residents of the village as required under O.1, R.8, and the suit was dismissed. The appeal set aside the decree and remanded the case for fresh decision after compliance with O.1, R.8.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court's failure to comply with the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C. was mandatory in nature, and the absence of notice could result in grave injustice. Citing precedent, the court upheld the setting aside of the decree and the remand for fresh decision.
Issues: Non-compliance with the notice requirement of Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C. and the setting aside of the decree by the lower appellate court.
Ratio Decidendi: The mandatory nature of the notice requirement under Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C. and the potential for grave injustice in its absence, as established in the precedent of Radha Kishan V/s. Raja Ram (1976) 78 Pun LR 271.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the case was remanded for fresh decision after complying with the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8, with no order as to costs.
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge dated 29th September, 1984 whereby the decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit was set aside and the case was remanded to the trial Court for fresh decision after complying with the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8, Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Admittedly, the plaintiffs Gurnam Singh and others filed the suit for declaration in a representative capacity after filing an application under O.1, R.8, Code of Civil Procedure. It appears that the trial Court did not issue notices for the institution of the suit to ail the residents of the village either by personal service or public advertisement as required under O.1. R.8, Code of Civil Procedure and the suit was allowed to proceed as such. Ultimately, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge found that since there was non-compliance of O.1, R.8, the decree was liable to be set aside and thus remanded the case to the trial Court for a fresh decision after compliance of O.1, R.8. Dissatisfied with the same, the defendants have filed this appeal.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I do not find any merit in this appeal. Admittedly, the trial Court failed to comply with the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C. The said provision of law is mandatory in nature. In the absence of any notice, the provisions of sub-rule(2) would become redundant and grave injustice may result therefrom in the form of a decree against persons who were never told that a case was pending against them. It was held in Radha Kishan V/s. Raja Ram (1976) 78 Pun LR 271 that the issue of a notice is not a mere empty formality but a sine qua non for the applicability of the rule. Under the circumstances, the lower appellate Court rightly set aside the decree of the trial Court and remanded the case for fresh decision after complying with the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. The parties have been directed to appear in the trial Court on 14th June, 1985.
