Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 23695

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Ravi Nath Tilhari, Challa Gunaranjan, JJ
Sea Coast Logistics & Marine – Appellant
Versus
TGV SRAAC Ltd. – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2750 OF 2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Tagore Yadav Yaragorla
For the Respondents: Hema Bindhu Karuturi, G.K.V.D. Kumari

Actual service of summons by registered post is valid even for defendants residing outside the jurisdiction of the issuing court. Rule 21 is directory; non-compliance does not invalidate actual service. An exparte decree cannot be set aside for mere procedural irregularity if the defendant had notice.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 5 Rules 9(3), 9(4) and 21 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 and Article 123 - Service of summons - Exparte decree - Application for condonation of delay - Where summons are sent via registered post acknowledgment due to a defendant residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the issuing court, such service remains a valid mode of service under the Code. Rule 21 is an enabling, not a mandatory, provision; therefore, non-compliance with the procedure of routing summons through a local court does not invalidate actual service effected by registered post. (Paras 18, 20, 21, 23, 25)

(B) Exparte Decree - Irregularity in service - Second proviso to Order 9 Rule 13 CPC prohibits setting aside an exparte decree merely on the ground of irregularity in the service of summons if the defendant had notice of the hearing and sufficient time to appear. (Paras 12, 40, 41)

(C) Limitation - Condonation of delay - Discretionary power - The length of delay is immaterial; the court must distinguish between a genuine 'explanation' and an 'excuse'. Unless a 'sufficient cause' is established, consistent with the rigour of statutory limitations, the delay cannot be condoned to defeat a substantive right to a decree. (Paras 35, 36, 39)

Facts of the case:
An application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone a 464-day delay in seeking to set aside an exparte decree was dismissed by the trial court. The petitioners contended that since they resided outside the court's jurisdiction, the service of summons by registered post was improper due to non-compliance with the rule requiring service through the local court of the defendant's residence. They claimed knowledge of the decree only upon receiving execution petition notices.

Findings of Court:
The court held that Rule 21 is directory and does not preclude service via registered post acknowledgment due, which is one of the valid modes of service prescribed under Order 5 rules. Since the defendants were actually served as evidenced by the acknowledgment, the contention of improper service fails. There was no 'sufficient cause' shown for the inordinate delay.

Issues: The main issues were whether service of summons by registered post upon a defendant residing outside the court's jurisdiction constitutes 'due service' in the absence of following the procedure in Rule 21, and whether the trial court correctly refused to condone the delay in seeking to set aside the exparte decree.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that actual service by registered post satisfies the requirement of law regardless of the invocation of Rule 21. As the defendants were validly served, the limitation period commenced from the date of the decree, and the failure to provide a sufficient explanation for the long delay warranted the dismissal of the application.

Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual history of service of summons and ex-parte decree. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 7)
2. contentions regarding service validity and limitation period. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. interpretation of order 5 rules 9 and 21 cpc regarding service outside jurisdiction. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 40 , 41)
4. principles governing condonation of delay and limitation under article 123. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)
5. court's final order and affirmation of the trial court's decision. (Para 46 , 47)

ORDER :(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)

Heard Sri Tagore Yadav Yaragorla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms.Hema Bindhu Karuturi, learned counsel representing Ms.G.K.V.D. Kumari, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’) by the defendants being aggrieved from the order, dated 30.09.2024, passed in I.A.No.40 of 2024 in C.O.S.No.8 of 2021 (in short ‘COS’) on the file of the Court of the learned Special Judge for Trial & Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Vijayawada (in short ‘the Special Judge’), dismissing their application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,1963,for condonation of delay of 464 days in filing the petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, to set aside the exparte decree dated 18.11.2022 in C.O.S.No.8 of 2021.

3. The plaintiff/respondent-M/s. TGV SRAAC Ltd., (formerly Rayalseema Alkalies and Allied Chemicals Limited) filed C.O.S.No.8 of 2021 for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,31,31,621/- being the outstanding amount due from the petitioners/defendants along with accrued interest and for some other reliefs. The suit was decreed exparte on 18.11.2022. The point for consideration as framed in the suit was answered in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. The learned Special Judge recorded in the judgment that the defendants 1 to 3 (petitioners 1 to 3) received the suit summons through registered post. But, they did not appear, even though the matter was posted for their appearance on 17.9.2021, 05.10.2021 and 02.11.2021. The petitioners/defendants 1 to 3 were set exparte on 02.11.2021. For defendant No.4 (petitioner No.4), it was recorded that he received the suit summons through the Court on 12.05.2022. But, he also failed to appear on 14.06.2022, 28.06.2022 and on 01.07.2022. He was also set exparte on 01.07.2022. The suit, as such, proceeded exparte and was decreed exparte on 18.11.2022, directing the defendants 1 to 4 to pay the plaintiff-company, the suit amount with subsequent interest @ 18% from the date of filing of the suit till the date of the decree and thereafter, @ 12% per annum from the date of the decree till the date of realization of the outstanding balance due amount.

4. The plaintiff/respondent filed E.P.No.477 of 2023 for execution of the decree, in the City Civil Courts, at Ahmadabad. The defendants/judgment debtors were served on the execution petition. They put in appearance on 17.01.2024. Thereafter, on 26.04.2024, they filed I.A.No.40 of 2024 under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act,1963 to condone the delay of 464 days, in filing the application under Order 9 Rule13 CPC for setting aside the exparte decree, dated 18.11.2022.

5. The main plea of the defendants/petitioners was that they did not receive summons of the suit from the Court and got knowledge of passing of the exparte decree when they received notices in E.P.No.477 of 2023, just before the start of second wave of COVID. They requested to condone the delay and accept the petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.

6. The plaintiff/respondent objected, inter alia, on the ground that there were no bonafides and no sufficient cause. Inspite of service of summons, the defendants filed the petition after long delay of 464 days, which could not be condoned.

7. The learned Special Judge, by order, dated 30.09.2024

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 23695

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHRavi Nath Tilhari, Challa Gunaranjan, JJSea Coast Logistics & Marine – AppellantVersusTGV SRAAC Ltd. – RespondentCIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2750 OF 2024

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Ravi Nath Tilhari, Challa Gunaranjan, JJ
Sea Coast Logistics & Marine – Appellant
Versus
TGV SRAAC Ltd. – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2750 OF 2024