- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Great Punjab Agro Industries Ltd. v. Khushian And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal by special leave challenges the order dated 16-9-2002 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No. 4446 of 2001. The underlying suit had been decreed ex parte on 16-4-1994. Applications to set aside the ex parte decree were rejected by the courts below, leading to the present appeal.
The notice to the appellant had been effected by substituted service through publication in the Tribune and the Punjab Kesari. These newspapers have circulation only in the State of Punjab. The appellant, however, resides in Bombay, and the two newspapers have no circulation in Bombay.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether substituted service by publication in newspapers that do not circulate in the locality where the defendant last resided complies with Order 5 Rule 20(1-A) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
- Whether, in the circumstances, the summons can be treated as effectively served so as to sustain the ex parte decree dated 16-4-1994.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court focused on the statutory requirement under Order 5 Rule 20(1-A) CPC governing substituted service. That provision mandates that if service is effected by advertisement, it must be in a daily newspaper circulating in the locality where the defendant is last known to have actually and voluntarily resided.
Applying this to the facts, the Court noted that the substituted service was executed by publication in the Tribune and the Punjab Kesari, which circulate only in Punjab. It is admitted that the appellant resides in Bombay and that these newspapers do not circulate there. Consequently, the procedure stipulated by Order 5 Rule 20(1-A) CPC was violated.
Because the statutory requirement for substituted service was not met, the Court concluded that the summons could not be said to have been effectively served on the defendant. This deficiency undermined the basis for proceeding ex parte, warranting the setting aside of the ex parte decree.
Holding and Implications
Appeal allowed; ex parte decree dated 16-4-1994 set aside.
The trial court is directed to restore the suit to its file and proceed to dispose of it in accordance with law after issuing proper notice to the defendant. No costs were awarded.
Implications: The immediate effect is that the suit is reopened for adjudication on merits after valid service of summons. The order turns on application of Order 5 Rule 20(1-A) CPC to the specific facts and does not indicate broader doctrinal developments or set a new precedent beyond its straightforward application of the statute.
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the order dated 16-9-2002 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No. 4446 of 2001. In view of the order that we propose to pass, it is not necessary to recite the entire facts leading to the filing of the present appeal. Suffice it to say that the suit was decreed ex parte by an order dated 16-4-1994. The application for setting aside the ex parte order has been rejected by the courts below. Hence, the present petition. The notice to the appellant is by way of substituted service. The substituted service was published in the Tribune and the Punjab Kesari which have circulation only in the State of Punjab. Admittedly, the appellant stays at Bombay. The newspapers in which the notice was published by way of substituted service, namely, the Tribune and the Punjab Kesari have no circulation in Bombay. Order 5 Rule 20(1-A) CPC enjoins that if the service of notice is by advertisement in the newspaper, it shall be in the daily newspaper circulating in the locality in which the defendant is last known to have actually and voluntarily resided. In the instant case, the procedure prescribed under Order 5 Rule 20(1-A) with regard to substituted service has been violated. In the premises, it cannot be said that the summons upon the defendant were effectively served. In this view of the matter, the ex parte decree dated 16-4-1994 is set aside. The trial court shall take up the suit to its file and proceed to dispose of it in accordance with law after proper notice to the defendant. The appeal is allowed. No costs.
Alert