BASANT SINGH Vs. ROMAN CATHOLIC MISSION
LAWS(SC)-2002-10-81
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
October 03,2002
Basant Singh And Anr.
Appellant
VERSUS
ROMAN CATHOLIC MISSION
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
GOLI LAXMINARAYAN VS. YELETI VEERBHADRA RAO [LAWS(ORI)-2010-5-27] [REFERRED TO]COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. K P V SHAIK MOHAMED ROWTHER AND CO P LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2002-10-120] [REFERRED TO]
SUBEDAR AMAR SINGH VS. AVTAR SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2003-4-166] [REFERRED]
IQBAL KAUR VS. JAGDISH PEASAD [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-2-107] [REFERRED TO]
MADHAVSINGH TULSIDAS VS. BHAKTIBEN NARANDAS PALEJA [LAWS(BOM)-2006-6-83] [REFERRED TO]
TIRATHDAS POKHARDAS KALDA VS. SURIBAI ASSUMAL MOOLCHANDANI [LAWS(BOM)-2006-10-159] [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD VS. NASIBUNNISA MOHD ISRAR KHAN AND OTHERS [LAWS(BOM)-2011-10-187] [REFERRED]
SANTOSH KUMARI VS. 4TH ADDITIONAL, DISTICT JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-2012-9-243] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA TRILOCHAN SINGH VS. LHS OF DECD. BHIKHABHAI DHANABHAI PATANWADIYA [LAWS(GJH)-2023-4-2656] [REFERRED TO]
JODHARAM VS. JAGNMATHAMMA [LAWS(KAR)-2006-11-66] [REFERRED TO]
L.K. PANDEY VS. BANK OF BARODA [LAWS(DR)-2005-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH KUMAR VS. SATISH KUMAR [LAWS(ALL)-2009-12-307] [REFERRED TO]
PRITAM SEN VS. SWSASTIKA SEN [LAWS(CAL)-2009-4-66] [REFERRED TO]
DAVID K N VS. S R CHAUBEY CHATURVEDI [LAWS(BOM)-2003-2-126] [REFERRED TO]
NAJEEBUNNISA VS. MOHAMMED MAHBOOB ALI KHAN [LAWS(APH)-2007-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
THIRU N BALASUBRAMAIAN VS. K KAMALA [LAWS(MAD)-2010-7-280] [REFERRED TO]
NEETHU M. VS. SABAREENATH M.S. [LAWS(KER)-2017-8-293] [REFERRED TO]
WESTFORT HI-TECH HOSPITAL LTD VS. V S KRISHNAN [LAWS(KER)-2006-11-44] [REFERRED TO]
N BALASUBRAMANIAN VS. K KAMALA [LAWS(MAD)-2010-7-601] [RELIED ON]
KHETRABASI SRICHANDAN AND ORS. VS. GOPINATH SRICHANDAN [LAWS(ORI)-2008-7-86] [REFERRED TO]
PREM BAHADUR DALELA VS. UMESHRAJ BALI [LAWS(ALL)-2019-11-51] [REFERRED TO]
VASCO URBAN CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD VS. SHOBHA D KORGAONKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2004-10-196] [REFERRED]
YERAKAREDDY ANATHAREDDI VS. DURBA LAKSHMI BHAVANI [LAWS(APH)-2009-7-20] [REFERRED TO]
NOOR MOHAMMAD VS. XIVTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-2006-2-249] [REFERRED TO]
M KUPPUSAMI VS. DECCAN FINANCE LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2009-4-145] [REFERRED]
NAGAR NIGAM VS. SRI RAJESH KUMAR RAWAT AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2011-9-595] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH KUMAR JAISWAL VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-7-199] [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH KUMARI SHARMA VS. KAMLA DEVI [LAWS(DLH)-2021-8-112] [REFERRED TO]
E PRABAKARAN VS. LAKSHMI VILAS BANK LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2011-4-133] [REFERRED TO]
H V RAVIPRASAD VS. NANDA KISHORE [LAWS(KAR)-2014-2-448] [REFERRED TO]
SUDESH TIKOO VS. RAJ VANSHI [LAWS(J&K)-2004-5-18] [REFERRED TO]
BIDYADHAR BEHERA VS. KANAKALATA NAYAK [LAWS(ORI)-2003-6-44] [REFERRED TO]
BAJRANG LAL SWAMI VS. KANTA DEVI [LAWS(RAJ)-2020-9-46] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA RAMCHANDRA JADHAV YADAV VS. SHANKARI B AJIMAL [LAWS(BOM)-2005-7-28] [REFERRED TO]
SARITA PAWANKUMAR GOENKA VS. JAI PRAKASH STRIPS LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2009-12-230] [REFERRED]
BABU TANDON LAL ALIAS PAPPU VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE BAREILLY [LAWS(ALL)-2010-9-41] [REFERRED TO]
HUSNA PARVEEN VS. RASHID AHMAD [LAWS(ALL)-2015-10-171] [REFERRED TO]
PRITAM SEN VS. SWASTIKA SEN (MUKHERJEE) [LAWS(CAL)-2008-9-78] [REFERRED TO]
ASANSOL MEDICAL CENTRE VS. GITA DEVI MAROLIA [LAWS(CAL)-2012-10-39] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH KUMAR VS. SAVITRI GOYAL [LAWS(ALL)-2009-12-119] [REFERRED TO]
HANJIN SHIPPING CO. LTD VS. A.TOSH & SONS(I) LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2013-9-22] [REFERRED TO]
REKHA MAHINDRA SHAH VS. GAUTAM UMED PARMAR [LAWS(BOM)-2013-4-6] [REFERRED TO]
MASTER NITISH ARORA VS. STATE OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2007-1-59] [REFERRED TO]
NAGARJUNA CONSTRUCTION CO LTD VS. R K MAHESHWARI [LAWS(MPH)-2004-8-19] [REFERRED TO]
HIRALAL VS. HARI SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-2012-9-177] [REFERRED TO]
M/S M.J.M. PROPERTIES VS. KUMARESH MAJUMDAR [LAWS(NCD)-2012-10-40] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. RAJENDRA TRADING CO. & ANR. VS. M/S. SHRI MAHALAXMI TRADING CO. [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-10-170] [REFERRED TO]
GWAL DAS S/O DEV DAS SWAMI VS. GOMA DEVI W/O SURAJMAL SWAMI [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-7-208] [REFERRED TO]
DIVERSE AGRO VS. GURMEET SINGH [LAWS(NCD)-2012-8-91] [REFERRED TO]
SABAREENATH M S VS. NEETHU M [LAWS(KER)-2017-8-214] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NIHORE VS. AJAYAB LAL [LAWS(ALL)-2019-8-345] [REFERRED TO]
SWASTIKA SEN VS. PRITAM SEN [LAWS(CAL)-2009-4-45] [REFERRED TO]
SWEETY GUPTA VS. NEETY GUPTA & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2016-10-20] [REFERRED TO]
DINANATH THAKUR VS. DINANATH SAO [LAWS(PAT)-2004-12-60] [REFERRED TO]
BRAMHANANDA MISHRA VS. JOGEN KUMAR MISHRA [LAWS(ORI)-2004-1-46] [REFERRED TO]
YADAV CHANDRA SHARMA VS. GYANENDRA SINGH KUSHWAH [LAWS(MPH)-2017-11-126] [REFERRED TO]
BANSILAL YADAV VS. SURAJ CHAND BHAGAT [LAWS(APH)-2006-12-44] [REFERRED TO]
INDIRA RANI UGRASEN VS. VIJAYA B. DESAI AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-8-109] [REFERRED TO]
PRODYUT KUMAR SARDAR VS. ASIT KRISHNA SAHA [LAWS(CAL)-2014-12-99] [REFERRED TO]
VANDANA GULATI VS. GURMEET SINGH ALIAS MANGAL SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2013-1-11] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Sema, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The sole question that falls for consideration in this appeal is, whether the service of notice sent by registered post with acknowledgment card in terms of O. 5 second proviso to R. 19-A of the Code of Civil Procedure read with S. 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 can be accepted as a sufficient notice.
(3.)This appeal filed by the defendants (judgment-debtors) arises out of the following material facts. Suit No. 473 of 1985 filed by the landlord ended in passing of an ex parte decree by the trial Court on 30-5-1986. The appellants preferred an application on 6-10-1986 under O. 9, R. 13 for setting aside the ex parte decree which was rejected by the trial Court. Their appeal before the appellate Court and revision-petition before the High Court ended without any success. It appears, initially the plaintiff (respondent herein) could not deposit the requisite process fee for which the summons could not be issued to the appellants-defendants. On 2-4-1986, the trial Court ordered the summons to be issued to the defendants, both by ordinary process and by registered post,and the case was adjourned to 30-4-1986. On a perusal of the record, and not disputed by the parties, we find that the registered notices were issued to the defendants vide postal receipt Nos. 875 and 876 dated 24-4-1986. As on 30-4-1986, summons issued by registered posts were not received back, the case was adjourned to 30-6-1986 awaiting the receipt of the service report. On 30-6-1986, the trial Court again ordered that fresh summons both by ordinary post and registered post be issued within three days. The trial Court also ordered substituted service by resorting to O. 5, R. 20, C.P.C. by publication of summons in local daily "Dainik Bhaskar." On 5-8-1986, it appears that a notice of publication in daily newspaper "Aacharan" instead of "Dainik Bhaskar" as ordered by the Court has been produced. This is one of the grievances of the appellants, which we shall be dealing at appropriate place. On 22-8-1986, the trial Court passed an order to proceed ex parte and fixed the case for 4-9-1986 for evidence of the plaintiff. As the date fixed 4-9-1986 was declared a public holiday, the plaintiff's witness was examined on 5-9-1986 and the ex parte judgment and decree was passed on 30-9-1986. It is stated that the appellants came to know of the ex parte decree on 1-10-1986 and filed an application on 6-10-1986 for setting aside the ex parte decree, as noticed above.
(2.)The sole question that falls for consideration in this appeal is, whether the service of notice sent by registered post with acknowledgment card in terms of O. 5 second proviso to R. 19-A of the Code of Civil Procedure read with S. 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 can be accepted as a sufficient notice.
(3.)This appeal filed by the defendants (judgment-debtors) arises out of the following material facts. Suit No. 473 of 1985 filed by the landlord ended in passing of an ex parte decree by the trial Court on 30-5-1986. The appellants preferred an application on 6-10-1986 under O. 9, R. 13 for setting aside the ex parte decree which was rejected by the trial Court. Their appeal before the appellate Court and revision-petition before the High Court ended without any success. It appears, initially the plaintiff (respondent herein) could not deposit the requisite process fee for which the summons could not be issued to the appellants-defendants. On 2-4-1986, the trial Court ordered the summons to be issued to the defendants, both by ordinary process and by registered post,and the case was adjourned to 30-4-1986. On a perusal of the record, and not disputed by the parties, we find that the registered notices were issued to the defendants vide postal receipt Nos. 875 and 876 dated 24-4-1986. As on 30-4-1986, summons issued by registered posts were not received back, the case was adjourned to 30-6-1986 awaiting the receipt of the service report. On 30-6-1986, the trial Court again ordered that fresh summons both by ordinary post and registered post be issued within three days. The trial Court also ordered substituted service by resorting to O. 5, R. 20, C.P.C. by publication of summons in local daily "Dainik Bhaskar." On 5-8-1986, it appears that a notice of publication in daily newspaper "Aacharan" instead of "Dainik Bhaskar" as ordered by the Court has been produced. This is one of the grievances of the appellants, which we shall be dealing at appropriate place. On 22-8-1986, the trial Court passed an order to proceed ex parte and fixed the case for 4-9-1986 for evidence of the plaintiff. As the date fixed 4-9-1986 was declared a public holiday, the plaintiff's witness was examined on 5-9-1986 and the ex parte judgment and decree was passed on 30-9-1986. It is stated that the appellants came to know of the ex parte decree on 1-10-1986 and filed an application on 6-10-1986 for setting aside the ex parte decree, as noticed above.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.