Back
SANJAY KUMAR
Laishram Ongbi Mandakini Devi – Appellant
Versus
Hijam Openjit Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, is the plaintiff in Original (Money) Suit No.3 of 2018 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bishnupur. She filed the said suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.20 lakh, based on a promissory note. The defendant in the suit was set ex parte by the Trial Court, vide order dated 21.08.2018. Thereupon, the defendant filed Judicial Miscellaneous Case No.8 of 2019 praying that the order dated 21.08.2018, setting him ex parte, be set aside and to allow him to file his written statement. By order dated 20.02.2019, the Trial Court accepted the defendant's first plea on payment of costs of Rs.300/- and relegated him to the stage of the suit as on 21.08.2018. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed this revision.
2. By Order dated 26.04.2019, this Court stayed the suit proceedings. The stay was extended until further orders on 10.05.2019.
3. Heard Mr. T.Rajendra, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and Mr. S.Devajit, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant.
4. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Trial Court.
5. The case put forth by the de
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 main legal point established is that the trial court must ensure proper service of summons and comply with the legal requirements for substituted service.
Compliance with the procedures for serving summons properly as required under Order V Rule 19 of CPC and the need to give the defendant a fair opportunity to defend the suit on merits.
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of proper service of summons as per the requirements of Order V Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Substituted service of summons through publication is only permissible when proper procedures are followed; failure to do so invalidates ex-parte judgments.
The court emphasized the necessity of effective service of summons and adherence to procedural mandates in civil proceedings.
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
