Back
MANISH MATHUR
Geeta Pandey – Appellant
Versus
Raghvendra Datt Ram Pandey – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Manish Mathur, J.
Heard Mr. Mayankar Singh, learned counsel for revisionist and Mr. Prashant Singh Gaur, on behalf of opposite party No.1.
2. Learned counsel for the parties admit that opposite party no.2 is merely proforma in nature and, therefore, notices are dispensed with.
3. Revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(hereinafter referred to as the Code) has been filed challenging orders dated 07.01.2021 and 20.01.2023 passed in Regular Suit No.760 of 2019 instituted for declaration. Vide order dated 07.01.2021, exparte proceedings were directed against the revisionist/defendant and vide order dated 20.01.2023, application preferred by revisionist under Order 9, Rule 7 of the Code has been rejected.
4. Learned counsel for revisionist submits that although notices were issued in the aforesaid proceedings but the revisionist as defendant was never served with notice resulting in her non-appearance and passing of order dated 07.01.2021 directing ex parte proceedings against her. It is submitted that upon gaining knowledge of aforesaid order, an Application under Order 9, Rule 7 of the Code was preferred which has also been rejected by means of order dat
The Chief Ministerial Officer lacks authority to issue judicial notices; valid service requires proper documentation to invoke presumptions under the General Clauses Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the mandatory procedures for service of summons under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the insufficiency of subst....
The service of notice to any adult family member, including a female, is valid despite local amendments restricting it to male members, thus upholding the decree passed. Refusal to appear without suf....
Service of summons must be lawful and proper; mere knowledge of a suit is insufficient without adequate notice to uphold principles of natural justice.
Substituted service of summons through publication is only permissible when proper procedures are followed; failure to do so invalidates ex-parte judgments.
Proper service of summons is crucial, and failure to adhere to the prescribed procedure can lead to the conclusion of non-service, as highlighted by the Supreme Court decisions referenced in the judg....
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
