Back
MADHYA BHARAT HIGH COURT, GWALIOR BENCH
DIXIT, J.
Roshan Singh - Appellant
Versus
Chiranjilal - Respondent
Civil Revn. No.218 of 1951
Decided On : 31-03-1952
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Jagannath Prasad Gupta
For the Respondent: Ram Krishna Dixit
The duty of the process-server to serve summonses and the absence of an obligation on the parties to accompany the process-server for serving summonses on their witnesses.
Headnote:
Summonses - Duty of Process-Server - Legal Provision Regarding Service of Summonses
Fact of the Case:
The trial court abated the applicant's right to issue summonses to his witnesses for failing to accompany the process-server, and directed the applicant to produce his witnesses in court and pay adjournment costs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the trial court's order to be illegal and in disregard of Order 16, Rule 1, stating that there is no provision in the C.P. Code obligating parties to accompany the process-server for serving summonses on their witnesses.
Issues: The issues involved the duty of the process-server and the obligation of parties in serving summonses to witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it is the duty of the process-server to serve summonses, and parties cannot be punished for the process-server's negligence. The trial court's order was set aside, and the applicant's witnesses were to be summoned for the case to be disposed of in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The revision petition was accepted, the trial court's order was set aside, and the applicant's witnesses were to be summoned for the case to be disposed of in accordance with the law. The learned Civil Judge was warned against disregarding the decision of the Court in the future.
1. This is a revision Petition from an order of the Civil Judge Second Class, Ambah abating the applicant's right to the issue of summonses to his witnesses on the ground that the applicant had failed to accompany the process-server for the service of the summonses on the witnesses and directing the applicant to produce his witnesses in the Court on the next day of hearing and to pay Rs.4/- as adjournment costs to the non-applicant.
2. The order of the trial Court is clearly illegal and in utter disregard of Order 16, Rule 1. I have had occasion to point out in - 'Pahalwan Singh v. Mahadevi', Civil Revn.No.148 of 1951, that there is no provision in the C.P. Code casting an obligation on the parties to accompany the process-server for having the summonses served on their witnesses. It is the duty of the process-server to serve the summonses and if he fails to do so, parties cannot be punished for his negligence. In the present case the summonses had been issued to the applicant's witnesses and the process-server returned them unserved with the remark that the applicant did not accompany him for effecting the service. In these circumstances, the trial Court was not justified in giving any adjournment costs to the non-applicant and directing the applicant to bring his witnesses with him on the next date of hearing.
3. For the above reasons I accept this revision petition and set aside the order of the lower Court with the direction that the applicant's witnesses be summoned and the case be disposed of in accordance with law.
4. I must observe that the revision petition No.148 of 1951 was also from an order of the Civil Judge Second Class, Ambah and it appears to me that the learned Civil Judge has disregarded altogether the decision of this Court in that revision petition and passed the illegal order which is now under revision. The learned Civil Judge is warned that in future such flagrant disregard of the decision of this Court will not be lightly overlooked by this Court.
5. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs of this petition.
