SUSHIL KUMAR SABHARWAL Vs. GURPREET SINGH
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUSHIL KUMAR SABHARWAL
Click here to view full judgement.
R.C. LAHOTI, J. -
(1.)THIS is a landlord-tenant litigation. The tenant is aggrieved by an ex-parte decree dated 9.10.1993 for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction from the suit premises bearing plot No.9, Chowk Shakti Nagar, Amritsar where the tenant carries on his business of selling shoes. An application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the C.P.C. seeking setting aside of the ex- parte decree was filed which was opposed, enquired into and rejected by the Trial Court. The Civil Revision preferred by the tenant met with the same fate. The tenant has filed this appeal by Special Leave.
(2.)A perusal of the record of proceedings shows that the process server was entrusted with summons for service on the defendant-tenant. The date of hearing appointed was 23.2.1993. According to the process server, Narinderjeet Singh, he went to the shop of the tenant-appellant on 22.2.1993 and tendered to him the summons accompanied by a copy of the plaint. The tenant refused to accept the summons. Then, he returned the summons alongwith an endorsement of refusal on the back of summons to the Court on 23.2.1993. On 23.2.1993, the Court recorded default in appearance of the defendant-tenant and proceeded ex-parte resulting into the ex-parte decree dated 9.10.1993.
The singular issue which arises for determination in the case is whether the defendant-tenant can be said to have been properly served in the manner contemplated by the Code of Civil Procedure?
(3.)BEFORE we proceed to notice the relevant provisions of law, it will be relevant to state what was endorsed by the process server on the back of the summons and what was deposed to by him in the court when he was examined in the court as a witness for the landlord-respondent.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.