Back
1994 JLJ 397
P.C. Pathak, J.
Rajeshwari (Smt.) v. Jugal Kishore Gupta
Misc. (First) Appeal No. 223 of 1984; against the order of Shri D.P. Verma
4th Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur, passed in Misc.
Judicial Case No. 30 of 1983, in Civil Suit No. 207-A of 1982;
Decided on 12.4.1989.
(2) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 9 R. 13 and O. 43 R. 1 (d) -- appeal against dismissal of application under O. 9 R. 13 for setting aside ex-parte decree -provisions under S. 15 of Hindu Marriage Act are applicable.
The application to set aside ex-parte decree was rejected on 5.4.1984, while the respondent remarried on 20.4.1984 even before the limitation for filing an appeal against the order of rejection had expired. Relying on the law laid down by the Supreme Court, by analogy, it must be held that the respondent, without waiting for the period of appeal to expire and without varifying whether the appellant with intent to file appeal had applied for a certified copy of the order could not nullify her rights by remarrying hardly within 15 days of the order. Therefore, the appeal cannot be dismissed as infructuous by the alleged second marriage. AIR 1988 SC 838 and AIR 1967 SC 581 followed. AIR 1969 Mad. 405 and AIR 1971 J & K 31 relied on. 1965 JLJ 260 dissented from. AIR 1980 All. 336, AIR 1978 SC 1351 and F.A. No. 131/79 distinguished. [Para 15
(3) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O.9 R. 13, proviso II -- applies only in cases of irregularity in service of summons -- no application where service has not been effected to at all-- trial Court has to record his satisfaction.
In order to take benefit of this proviso, the plaintiff has to show (i) that the defendant was served with the summons; (2) the service of summons was irregular; and (iii) the defendant had the knowledge of the date of hearing of the suit. AIR 1979 Pat 314 relied on.
In addition, the trial Court is also required to record his satisfaction that the defendant had, after the knowledge of the date of hearing, sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiff‘s claim. The sufficiency of time can only be decided with reference to the date of service and the date of hearing. AIR 1985 Raj. 53 relied on. [Para 15-B
(4) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 6R.19A (2) proviso -- presumption of service after lapse of 30 days -- summons returned with remarks "addressee is not here" -no presumption is available. [Para 16
(5) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 5 Rr. 19A, 9 and 10 -- R. 19A requires in addition to registera post service simultaneous service by ordinary summons -- record not showing issuance of ordinary summons -- provision under R. 19A not complied with faithfully. [Para 19
(6) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S.114 c/s. (1) and (c) -- General Clauses Act, 1897 -- S. 27 -- provision under O.5 R. 19A (2), CPC -- is anologuous to provision under S. 27 of General Clauses Act -- notice sent by registered post with A.D. received back with endorsement "refused" -- presumption of service may be drawn even under S.114 of Evidence Act, as well as S.27 of the General Clauses Act. AIR 1958 Cal. 251, AIR 1971 All. 22 and AIR 1976 Delhi 111 relied on. AIR 1981 SC 1284 followed. [Paras 19 & 20
(7) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O.5 R. 19A proviso -- deemed service after 30 days -- may sometimes result in irreparable injury to defendant -- declaration of deemed service may also be made in cases where registered article is lost after it is received back by sender as undelivered to the addressee. [Paras 21 & 22
(8) Evidence Act, 1872 -- Ss.16 and 114 ill. (j) -- presumption as to service of registered letter sent through post office -- Parliament over estimated promptness and regularity of post office -- Court not bound to raise presumption. 1933 Rang. 76 relied on. [Para 23
(9) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 9 R. 13 and O.5 R.19A (2) proviso -- misuse of proviso to R. 19A (2) not ruled out -- presumption of service not available -ex-parte decree passed on the basis of such presumption -- liable to be set aside. [Para 26
(10) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 5 R.19A (2) proviso -- enactment of presumption of service -- misuse of the provision is not ruled out --law framers should re-think on it -- Court while acting under -- should verify faithfully compliance of all pred`requisites -- drastic provisions under -- should not be applied except in extreme cases. [Para 25
¼1½ fganw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955 & /kkjk 15 rFkk 28 & /kkjk 15 dk mica/k ,di{kh; fMØh vikLr fd, tkus ds fy, fl-ç-la- ds vk-9 fu-13 ds v/khu vkosnu [kkfjt fd, tkus ds fo#) ykxw gksrk gS & ,slh [kkfjth ds 15 fnu Ik‘pkr iqufoZokg & ekU; ugha gSa vkSj vuos{kk ;ksX; gS & vihy çR;FkhZ }kjk iqufoZokg dj ysus ij fu"Qy ugha gks tkrhA
¼2½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk-9 fu-13 rFkk vk-43 fu-1 ¼?k½ & vk-9 fu-13 ds v/khu ,di{kh; fMØh vikLr fd, tkus ds fy, vkosnu dh [kkfjth ds fo#) vihy & fganw fookg vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 15 ds v/khu mica/k ykxw gksrs gSaA
,di{kh; fMØh vikLr fd, tkus ds fy, vkosnu 5-4-1994 dks [kkfjt fd;k x;k] tc fd çR;FkhZ us [kkfjth ds vkns‘k ds fo#) vihy Qkby djus dh ifjlhek lekIr gksus ds Hkh iwoZ 20-4-1984 dks iqufoZokg dj fy;kA mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk vf/kdfFkr fof/k dk voyac ysdj] lkn`‘; }kjk] ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gh tkuk pkfg, fd çR;FkhZ] vihy dh vof/k lekIr gks tkus dh çrh{kk fd, fcuk ;g tk¡p fd, fd D;k vihykFkhZ us vihy Qkby djus ds vk‘k; ls vkns‘k dh çekf.kr çfrfyfi ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gS] vkns‘k ds 15 fnu ds Hkhrj gh iqufoZokg djds mlds vf/kdkj vÑr ugha dj ldrk FkkA blfy,] vfHkdfFkr iqufoZokg }kjk fu"Qy dh Hkk¡fr [kkfjt ugha dh tk ldrhA , vkb vkj 1988 ,l lh 838 rFkk , vkb vkj 1967 ,l lh 581 vuqlfjrA , vkb vkj 1969 ts ,y ts 260 folEerA , vkb vkj 1980 bykgkckn 336] , vkb vkj 1978 ,l lh 1351 rFkk çFke vihy Ø- 131@79 çHksfnrA ¿iSjk 15
¼3½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk-9 fu-13 ijarqd 2 & dsoy leu dh rkehy esa vfu;ferrk dh n‘kk esa ykxw gksrk gS & ogk¡ ykxw ugha gksrk tgk¡ rkehy dh gh ugha xbZ gS & fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks mldk lek/kku vfHkfyf[kr djuk gksxkA
bl ijarqd dk Qk;nk mBkus ds fy, oknh dks nf‘kZr djuk gksxk fd ¼i½ çfroknh ij leu rkehy gqvk Fkk( ¼ii½ leu dh rkehy vfu;fer Fkh( rFkk ¼iii½ çfroknh dks okn esa lquokbZ dh rkjh[k dh tkudkjh FkhA , vkb vkj 1979 iVuk 314 voyafcrA
blds vfrfjDr] fopkj.k U;k;ky; ls Hkh viuk lek/kku vfHkfyf[kr fd;k tkuk visf{kr gS fd çfroknh dks lquokbZ dh rkjh[k dh tkudkjh gksus ds Ik‘pkr] milatkr gksus vkSj oknh ds nkos dk mÙkj nsus ds fy, Ik;kZIr le; miyC/k FkkA le; dh Ik;kZIrrk dk fofu‘p; dsoy rkehy dh rkjh[k rFkk lquokbZ dh rkjh[k ds funsZ‘k ls fd;k tk ldrk gSA , vkb vkj 1985 jktLFkku 53 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 15 ¼ch½
¼4½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk-5 fu-19d ¼2½ ijarqd & 30 fnu chrus ij rkehy dh mi/kkj.kk & leu bl fVIi.kh ds lkFk okil fd ^^çsf"krh ;gk¡ ugha gSa** & mi/kkj.kk miyC/k ugha gSaA
¼5½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk-5 fu-19d] 9 rFkk 10 & fu-19d }kjk jftLVªh Mkd }kjk rkehy ds vfrfjDr lkekU; leu }kjk rkehy lkFk&lkFk visf{kr gS & vfHkys[k ls lkekU; leu tkjh fd;k tkuk nf‘kZr ugha & fu-19d ds v/khu mica/k dk fu"BkiwoZd ikyu ugha gqvkA ¿iSjk 19
¼6½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 14 [kaM ¼p½ rFkk ¼x½ & lk/kkj.k [kaM vf/kfu;e] 1897 & /kkjk 27 & fl-ç-la- ds vk-5 fu-19d ¼2½ ds v/khu mica/k & lk/kkj.k [kaM vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 27 ds v/khu mica/k ds leku gS & jftLVªh Mkd ls vfHkLohÑfr Ik= lfgr Hksth xbZ lwpuk ^^badkj** Ik`"Bkadu ds lkFk okil çkIr & rkehy dh mi/kkj.kk lk{; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 114 ds v/khu Hkh rFkk lk/kkj.k [kaM vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 27 ds v/khu Hkh dh tk ldrh gSA , vkb vkj 1958 dydÙkk 251] , vkb vkj 1971 bykgkckn 22 rFkk , vkb vkj 1976 fnYyh 111 voyafcrA , vkb vkj 1981 ,l lh 1284 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 19 rFkk 20
¼7½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk-5 fu-19d ijarqd & 30 fnu Ik‘pkr~ le>h xbZ rkehy & çfroknh dks dHkh viwj.kh; {kfr esa ifj.kkfer gks ldrh gS & ,sls ekeyksa esa le>h xbZ rkehy dh ?kks"k.kk Hkh dh tk ldrh gS tc jftLVªhÑr oLrq çsf"krh dks vijfnÙk dh Hkk¡fr çs"kd }kjk okil çkIr gksdj [kks xbZ gksA ¿iSjk 21 rFkk 22
¼8½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 16 rFkk 114 n`"Vkar ¼p½ & Mkd?kj ds ek/;e ls Hksts x, jftLVªhÑr Ik= dh rkehy ds laca/k esa mi/kkj.kk & laln us Mkd?kj dh rRijrk vkSj fu;ferrk dk vf/kçkDdyu fd;k & U;k;ky; mi/kkj.kk djus ds fy, ck/; ugha gSaA , vkb vkj 1933 jaxwu 76 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 23
¼9½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk-9 fu-13 rFkk vk-5 fu-19d¼2½ ijarqd & fu-19d¼2½ ds ijarqd dk nq#Ik;ksx vuf/klaHkkO; ugha & rkehy dh mi/kkj.kk miyC/k ugha & ,di{kh; fMØh ,slh mi/kkj.kk ij ls ikfjr & vikLr fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA ¿iSjk 26
¼10½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk-5 fu-19d¼2½ ijarqd & rkehy dh mi/kkj.kk dk vf/kfu;eu & mica/k dk nq#Ik;ksx vuf/klaHkkO; ugha & fof/k fuekZrkvksa dks bl ij iqufoZpkj djuk pkfg, & U;k;ky; dks blds v/khu dkjZokbZ djrs le; & leLr iwokZis{kkvksa ds fu"Bkiw.kZ vuqikyu dh tk¡p djuk pkfg, & blds v/khu dBksj mica/k & vkR;afrd ekeyksa ds vfrfjDr ykxw ugha djuk pkfg,A ¿iSjk 25
P.C. Pathak, J. -- 1. The defendant/wife has filed this appeal against rejection of her application under rule 13 of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. The respondent/husband filed a petition on 10.12.1982 under section 12 (1) (b) and (C) for annuling the marriage by a decree of nullity alternatively under section 13 (1) (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter in short 'the Act') to dissolve the marriage by a decree of divorce on the allegations that the parties were married on 1.3.1978 according to Hindu rites and customs. Thereafter, the defendant lived with the plaintiff until 20.3.1978 whereafter she returned, along with her brother, to her parents' house. Thereafter, she was again brought to matrimonial home on 7.5.1978 and lived with him till 12.8.1978. During her stay with the plaintiff, he discovered that she was suffering for the last about five years from epilepsy. The marriage was thus in contravention of section 5 (ii) (c) of the Act voidable under section 12(1) (b) of the Act. On 14.3.1979, the plaintiff also recovered a letter containing objectionable and obscene words addressed to the defendant. On enquiry, the defendant declined to explain the possession of that letter in her trunk. The defendant became upset and unequivocally declared to return to her parents. On 18.3.1979, her brother came and she returned to her parents' house.
3. The trial Court issued summons for her appearance on 28.1.1983 by ordinary means as also through a registered post. However, the plaintiff paid process only for ordinary service. The summons remained unserved until 14 2.1983. On this date, the Court again ordered the plaintiff to pay process for issue of summons by ordinary means as also by registered post and fixed the case for 4.4.1983. On this date, the summons was not received back. Hence the case was adjourned to 15.4.1983. The envelope sent through registered post to Gwalior was received back, but the similar envelope sent to the defendant addressed at Tikamgarh was not received by the Court. Hence, the trial Court proceeded ex parte on 15.4.1'983. After recording ex parte evidence of the plaintiff on 30.4.1983, the Court passed the ex-parte judgment and decree under section 13 (1) (ib) of the Act on the ground of desertion. Other grounds alleged were held not proved.
4. On 11.7.1983, the defendant filed an application under rule 13 of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging that she had never received any summons of civil suit No. 207-A of 1982. She had filed civil suit No. 5-A of 1983 under section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights in the Court of District Judge, Gwalior. The plaintiff filed his written statement in that suit on 29.6.1983 when the defendant for the first time learnt about the ex parte decree in the suit filed by him at Jabalpur. She, therefore, submitted that the plaintiff obtained the ex parte decree by playing fraud on the trial Court and the decree was liable to be set aside.
5. The plaintiff opposed the application inter alia on the ground that the defendant had knowledge of the pendency of the suit at Jabalpur through her advocate Smt. Seemla Jain who attended the Court on 4.4.1983 and 15.4.1983 and watched progress of the case but without filing power in the suit.
6. On the aforesaid pleadings, the defendant examined herself and Shri K.K. Dwivedi, Advocate at Gwalior, while the plaintiff examined himself, his brother Shri Krishna Gupta (N.A.W. 2) and Court Reader Laxmi Narain Dube (N.A.W. 3).
7. Disbelieving the defendant's evidence and relying on the statements of Shri Krishna Gupta (N.A.W. 2) and Court Reader Laxmi Narain Dube (N.A.W. 3), the learned trial Court held that the defendant had the knowledge of the pendency of the suit at Jabalpur Court Therefore, the ex parte decree could not be set aside under proviso to rule 13 of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application was accordingly rejected. The defendant has, therefore, filed the present ap
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
