S.B Sinha, J.— Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The appellant is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 28-6-2004 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dismissing the appeal preferred against an order dated 19-7-1996 passed by Addl. Civil Judge, Hyderabad in IA No. 6 of 1992.
4. The respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs 1,87,904.62 with future interest at the rate of 18.5% per annum against the appellant. It appears that in the summons sent to the appellant, 10-10-1988 was fixed for his appearance. However, as the summons had not been served, the court adjourned the matter to 2-12-1988. Summons were served on the appellant on 14-10-1988, but according to him a copy of the plaint was not annexed thereto. He sent a telegram on 17-10-1988 and also a letter to the court concerned but, admittedly, the same was not responded to. Without issuing any further summons fixing another date for his appearance, the court fixed a date and having found the appellant absent on that date, fixed another date for ex parte hearing. On 13-12-1988 the suit was decreed with costs.
5. An execution case was filed by the respondent herein to execute the said decree. According to the appellant, the bailiff came to serve a copy of summons on him on 2-12-1991. The said summons having been served upon the appellant, he came to learn that ex parte decree has been passed. An application for setting aside the said ex parte decree was filed on 13-12-1991. By an order dated 17-1-1992 the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dismissed the said application inter alia opining:
(1) Non-receipt of a copy of the plaint and documents along with the summons cannot be a ground to set aside an ex parte decree.
(2) Moreover, since there was no report about the service of summons on 10-10-1988, there was no necessity to serve fresh summons.
(3) An ex parte decree having been passed on 13-12-1988 and an application for setting aside the ex parte decree having been filed on 13-12-1991, the same was barred by limitation.
6. An appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed by the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment.
7. Mr Prakash Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the trial court as also the High Court committed a manifest error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as it failed to consider the implication of: (i) the provisions of Order 5 Rule 2 CPC; (ii) provisions of Order 9 Rule 6(1)(c) CPC; and (iii) the provisions of Article 123 of the Limitation Act.
8. The learned counsel appears to be correct. When a summons is sent calling upon a defendant to appear in the court and file his written statement, it is obligatory on the part of the court to send a copy of the plaint and other documents appended thereto, in terms of Order 5 Rule 2 CPC.
9. Order 5 Rule 2 CPC reads as under:
“2. Copy of plaint annexed to summons.—Every summon shall be accompanied by a copy of the plaint.”
10. The learned Judge did not address itself the question as to how a defendant, in absence of a copy of the plaint and other documents, would be able to file his written statement. The court, furthermore, in our opinion, committed a manifest error insofar as it failed to take into consideration that the summons having been served upon the appellant after the date fixed for his appearance, it was obligatory on its part to fix another date for his appearance and filing written statement and direct the plaintiff to take steps for service of fresh summons. This legal position is explicit in view of the provisions of Order 9 Rule 6(1)(c) CPC which reads:
“6. (1)(c) When summons served but not in due time.—If it is proved that the summons was served on the defendant, but not in sufficient time to enable him to appear and answer on the day fixed in the summons, the court shall postpone the hearing of the suit to a future day to be fixed by the court, and shall direct notice of such day to be given to the defendant.”
11. The court, therefore, committed an illegality in dismissing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. It was a fit case where the court should have exercised its jurisdiction under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.
12. The third ground on which the learned trial Judge dismissed the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was that it was barred by limitation. The said ground in our opinion, is also without substance. The summons had not been duly served upon the appellant inasmuch as the provisions of Order 5 Rule 2 CPC or provisions of Order 9 Rule 6(1)(c) had not been complied with. In that view, the second part of Article 123, in terms whereof an applicant would be deemed to have knowledge of passing of the said ex parte decree would be the date from which the limitation will begin to run, would be attracted in the instant case and not the first part thereof.
13. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned judgments cannot be sustained and they are accordingly set aside. The ex parte decree dated 13-12-1988 is also set aside.
14. However, such an order need not be wholly unconditional one. Imposition of such condition is permissible under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, as would appear from a recent decision of this Court in Tea Auction Ltd. v. Grace Hill Tea Industry (2006) 12 SCC 104, (2006) 9 Scale 223 wherein this Court held:
“14. … However, the interpretation of the expression ‘payment into court’ did not directly fall for consideration in those cases.
15. Order 9 Rule 13 CPC did not undergo any amendment in the year 1976. The High Courts, for a long time, had been interpreting the said provision as conferring power upon the courts to issue certain directions which need not be confined to costs or otherwise. A discretionary jurisdiction has been conferred upon the court passing an order for setting aside an ex parte decree not only on the basis that the defendant had been able to prove sufficient cause for his non-appearance even on the date when the decree was passed, but also on other attending facts and circumstances. It may also consider the question as to whether the defendant should be put on terms. The court, indisputably, however, is not denuded of its power to put the defendants to terms. It is, however, trite that such terms should not be unreasonable or harshly excessive. Once unreasonable or harsh conditions are imposed, the appellate court would have power to interfere therewith. But, it would not be correct to hold that no error has been committed by the Division Bench in holding that the learned Single Judge did not possess such power. The learned Single Judge exercised his discretionary jurisdiction keeping in view that the matter had been disposed of in fact finally at the interim stage at the back of the defendant and it was in that view of the matter a chance was given to it to defend the suit, but, then the learned Single Judge was not correct to direct securing of the entire sum of Rs 37 lakhs in the form of bank guarantee or deposit the sum in cash. The condition imposed should have been reasonable. What would be reasonable terms would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.”
15. We, therefore, direct that the appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs 15,000 before the learned court below, within a period of six weeks from today. The appeal is allowed. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.