Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SANDEEP JAIN
Subhashchandra Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Ajay Kumar Sharma – Respondent
Judgment :
Sandeep Jain, J.
1. The instant appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(t) read with Section 104 CPC has been preferred by the defendant against the impugned order dated 23.5.2024 passed by Indu Dwivedi, Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Ghaziabad in Miscellaneous Case No. 71 of 2019 Subash Chand Gupta vs. Ajay Kumar Sharma and others whereby, the defendants application no.4-C under Order 41 Rule 21 CPC for recalling the ex-parte judgment in Civil Appeal no.146 of 2011, and to rehear the appeal on merits, has been rejected.
2. Appeal is admitted.
3. Factual matrix is that the plaintiff -respondents no. 1 to 3 filed O.S. no. 544 of 1997 against the defendant-appellant and co-defendant /respondent Phool Singh(died during pendency of suit) for the relief of permanent injunction and possession, which was dismissed on merits by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No.2 Ghaziabad on 18.8.2011, which was challenged by the plaintiffs by filing Civil Appeal no. 146 of 2011 Ajay Kumar Sharma and others vs. Gangaram and others in the Court of District Judge, Ghaziabad, which was subsequently after admission, transferred to the Additional District Judge, Court no.6, Ghaziabad.
Releva
Substituted service of summons through publication is only permissible when proper procedures are followed; failure to do so invalidates ex-parte judgments.
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.
Mandatory service requirements under Order V Rule 17 must be strictly followed; failure to do so invalidates ex-parte proceedings.
The court emphasized the necessity of effective service of summons and adherence to procedural mandates in civil proceedings.
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....
Order V Rule 19 of CPC, mandates that before declaring fact that summons have been duly served, it was obligatory for this Court to examine Process Server, on oath, as requisite affidavit has not bee....
Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to condone delay in appeal beyond 15 days under Section 61(2) of the IBC.
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
