Back
1991 JLJ 45
P.C. Pathak, J.
Electric Construction and Equipment Co. Ltd. (M/s.) v. Permali Wallace Ltd. and another
Misc. Appeal No. 277 of 1985; against the order of Shri P.D. Kerhalkar, 1st Additional Judge to the District Judge, Bhopal, passed in MJC No. 69 of 1983;
Decided on 19.3.1990.
(2) Civil P.C., 1908 --- O. 5, Rr. 9 to 19 and O. 5, R. 19-A (as inserted in M.P.) --- service through registered post under O. 5, R. 19-A is not in lieu or in substitution of other modes provided under Rr. 9 to 19 --- it is an additional mode of service --- this additional mode cannot be adopted when defendant resides outside the jurisdiction of Court. [Para 12
(3) Civil P.C., 1908 --- O. 5, R. 19-A(2) --- proviso and O. 5, Rr. 9 to 19 --additional mode of service under O. 5, R. 19-A --- cannot be adopted without adopting ordinary mode under O. 5, Rr. 9 to 19 --- presumption of deemed service cannot be raised in absence of receipt of registered letter. AIR 1984 Pat. 252, 1986(1) MPWN 205 and 1983 MPWN 369 relied on. [Para 13
(4) Civil P.C., 1908 --- O. 5, Rr. 21 and 23 and O. 5, R. 25-A (as inserted in M.P.) --- additional mode of service by registered post provided under O. 5, R. 25-A not valid if ordinary mode prescribed under O. 5, Rr. 21 and 23 are not adopted. 1962 MPLJ SN 281 relied on. [Para 17
(5) Civil P.C., 1908 --- O. 9, Rr. 6 and 13 --- defendant not serviced according to law --- plaint not enclosed -- date mentioned for appearance was holiday --- copy of summons not affixed on house of defendant --- limitation for setting aside exparte order or decree starts from knowledge. AIR 1989 MP 330, AIR 1964 MP 261, 1959 JLJ 253 and AIR 1954 Sau. 84 relied on. [Para 18
(6) Civil P.C., 1908 --- O. 9, R. 6 --- service by registered post in the first instance --- exparte proceeding cannot be made -- letter or telegram by defendant for adjournment --- shows his anxiety to defend the suit. AIR 1926 Lah. 579 relied on. [Para 20
(7) Civil P.C., 1908 --- O. 5, Rr. 20 or 20-A --- Limitation Act, 1963 --- Art. 123 --- expression "duly served" --- means service of summons according to provisions of CPC. 1960 JLJ 865 relied on. [Para 22
¼1½ ifjlhek vf/kfu;e] 1963 && vuq- 123 && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 5] fu- 19&d ¼e-iz- esa ;Fkk var%LFkkfir½ && jftLVªhd`r Mkd }kjk vuqdYih rkehy && fud`"V O;fDrxr rkehy gSA ¿ iSjk 10
¼2½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 5] fu- 9 ls 19 ,oa vk- 5] fu- 19&d ¼e-iz- esa ;Fkk var%LFkkfir½ && vk- 5] fu- 19&d ds v/khu jftLVªhd`r Mkd }kjk rkehy vk- 5] fu- 9 ls 19 ds v/khu micaf/kr vU; jhfr ds cnys esa vFkok vuqdYi esa ugha gS && ;g rkehy dh ,d vfrfjDr jhfr gS && ;g vfrfjDr jhfr izfroknh ds U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk ds ckgj fuokl djus dh n‘kk esa ugha viukbZ tk ldrhA ¿ iSjk 12
¼3½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 5] fu- 19&d¼2½ && ijarqd ,oa vk- 5] fu- 9 ls 19 && vk- 5] fu- 19&d ds v/khu rkehy dh vfrfjDr jhfr && vk- 5 ds fu- 9 ls 19 ds v/khu lkekU; jhfr dk ikyu fd, fcuk ugha viukbZ tk ldrh && jftLVªhd`r i= dh ikorh ds vHkko esa ^^ekuh xbZ rkehy** dh mi/kkj.kk ugha dh tk ldrhA , vkb vkj 1984 iVuk 252] 1986¼1½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 205 ,oa 1983 e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 369 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 13
¼4½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 5] fu- 21 ,oa 23 ,oa vk- 5] fu- 25&d ¼e-iz- esa ;Fkk var%LFkkfir½ && vk- 5] fu- 25&d ds v/khu jftLVªhd`r Mkd }kjk micaf/kr vfrfjDr jhfr && ;fn vk- 5] fu- 21 ,oa 23 esa fofgr lkekU; jhfr ugha viukbZ xbZ gS rc fof/kekU; ugha gSA 1962 ,e ih ,y ts ,l ,u 281 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 17
¼5½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 9] fu- 6 ,oa 13 && izfroknh dh rkehy fof/k ds vuqlkj ugha gqbZ && okni= layXu ugha && milatkfr gsrq mfYyf[kr rkjh[k vodk‘k dk fnu && leu dh izfr izfroknh ds ?kj ij ugha fpidkbZ xbZ && ,di{kh; vkns‘k vFkok ,di{kh; fMØh vikLr djokus dh ifjlhek tkudkjh ls vkjaHk gksrh gSA , vkb vkj 1989 ,e ih 330] , vkb vkj 1964 ,e ih 261] 1959 ts ,y ts 253 ,oa , vkb vkj 1954 lksjk"Vª 84 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 18
¼6½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 9] fu- 6 && izFker% jftLVªhd`r Mkd }kjk rkehy && ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh ugha dh tk ldrh && izfroknh }kjk LFkxu gsrq i= vFkok rkj && okn dh izfrj{kk djus dh mldh fpark n‘kkZrk gSA , vkb vkj 1926 ykgkSj 579 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 20
¼7½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 5] fu- 20 vFkok 20&d && ifjlhek vf/kfu;e] 1963 && vuq- 123 && vfHkO;fDr ^^lE;d~ rkehy** && rkRi;Z fl-iz-la- ds mica/kksa ds vuqlkj rkehy gksuk gSA 1960 ts ,y ts 865 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 22
P.C. Pathak, J. -- 1. The defendant has filed this appeal under order 43, rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order rejecting an application under order 9, rule 13, CPC to set aside ex-parte decree dated 20.4.1983.
2. On 1.10.1981, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,17,519.22 representing unpaid price of the goods together with interest @ 18% per annum, godown charges @ 2½% per annum. The plaintiff also claimed interest pendente lite and future both, godown charges at the aforesaid rate till realisation together with costs.
3. On 25.6.1982, the Court noted that the summons issued to the defendant were not received back. Therefore, the Court ordered issue of fresh summons in addition to by registered post. Order-sheet dated 5.8.1982, shows that the summons were not issued since the process fee and registration charges were not paid. On 20.9.1982, the Court noted that the summons sent through ordinary post was not back, and was therefore awaited, and the summons through registered post had not been issued. Therefore, the Court ordered issue of summons through registered post on the same day. The suit was posted for settlement of issues on 10.11.1982.
4. On 10.11.1982, the plaintiff alone appeared but the defendant did not appear. The Court proceeded ex-parte against the defendant under second proviso to order 5, rule 19-A(2) as reproduced below:-
"10.11.1982 -- Plaintiff by Shri C.M. Garg Advocate. None for the defendant. Summons for settlement of issues by registered post were issued on 1.10.82 and it is now more than a month. They are deemed to have been served under the proviso to order 5, rule 19-A(2).
Case ex-parte against the deft. at 12.30 p.m. today. Case for exparte evidence on 17.1.1983."
5. The notings on Process Form show that the envelope filed by the plaintiff on 20.9.1982, was deficit in stamps. The deficiency was made good only on 1.10.1982. The office copy of summons shows that one summons bearing P.No. 478 and addressed to the defendant to file written statement one week before and to appear on 10.11.1982 for settlement of issues. At page 93 of the record is a telegram dated 8.11.1982; marked Ex.P.3, sent by the defendant staling that their legal adviser was sick, and therefore, they are unable to attend. They prayed for adjournment and also to inform them the next date of hearing. The telegram bears an endorsement dt. 10.11.1982 "No cognizance can be taken. File".
6. As seen above, the case was fixed for ex-parte evidence on 17.1.1983. After a few adjournments, the plaintiff examined one Jayantilal on 18.4.1983 and closed their case. The Court pronounced the ex-parte judgment and decree on 30.4.1983.
7. On 24.11.1983, appellant/defendant filed application under order 9, rule 13 read with section 151, CPC to set aside the ex-parte decree alleging that they received the summons in 2nd week of October, 1982 for appearance on 10.11.1982, but their legal adviser Shri Patil fell ill, and, therefore, they could not attend the hearing on 10.11.1982. They sent a telegram to the Court on 8.11.1982 for adjournment and prayed for intimation of the next date. The defendant also sent two applications of even date through registered post and also by ordinary post confirming the telegram and repeating the prayers. The defendant was under the impression that the Court would be pleased to inform the next date of hearing. However on 21.10.1983, the defendant received a letter from the plaintiff informing them that the Court had awarded decree (copy enclosed) in favour of the plaintiff with costs and interest. Therefore, on 22.11.1983, the defendant sent an authorised agent to file necessary application. Their submission is that the proviso to O. 5, R. 19-A(2) comes into play only when the acknowledgment is lost, mislaid or has not been received by the Court; but the Court received telegram acknowledging receipt of the summons but that was ignored; the defendant was entitled to second
SupremeToday
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
