Summon Without Specific Day, Date, Year And Time Cannot Be Considered As Validly Served

Must Read

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention...

Supreme Court Asks Petitioner to Approach Bombay High Court in PIL for CBI Probe in Disha Salian Case

On the 26th of October 2020, the Apex Court heard the PIL praying for a CBI probe into the...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions,...

Follow us

Case Name: Auto Cars v. Trimurti Cargo Movers Private Limited

Citation: Civil Appeal No. 2113 of 2018

Decided on 16.02.2018

Supreme Court rules that service of summoning to a defendant without specifically mentioning the day, date, year and time cannot be held as duly served to summon within the scope of Order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Facts

An appeal was filed in the Supreme Court of India against the final order and judgment of Division Bench of High Court of Calcutta. It had passed an ex-parte order against the appellant confirming the decision of the single judge of High Court. Respondent No.1 in the present case had filed a civil suit for recovery of the amount of 1,43,18,537 rupees against the appellant under the original jurisdiction of Hon’ble High Court.

Amount to be recovered was due some commercial dealings exchanged between the parties in relation to services and supply of goods. The summon from High Court were sent to the appellant’s place of business which was stated in the cause title of the plaint. After delivery to the appellant failed through the ordinary course of service, the respondent with permission of High Court decided to serve the appellant by way of publication under Order 5 Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The concerned summon was published in The Times of India, Pune Edition, and Dainik Bhaskar, Aurangabad Edition on 25.11.2014. Defendant failed to appear, as a result, Court decided the matter according to merits and issued an ex-parte decree.

Appellant filed an application on 08.03.2016 under Order 9 Rule 13 requesting the court to set aside the ex-parte decree as no summons were duly served to them and they were totally unaware of the legal proceedings against them. Defendants further contended that their place of business was Aurangabad and summon was published in Pune edition of The Times of India and this was sufficient reason to set aside the ex-parte decree. Single Judge dismissed the application of the appellants. Appellant filed an appeal before Division Bench of High Court which was also rejected.

 Issues

  1. Can a summon be held to be duly served in absence of specified a date, day, time and year?
  2. Does the word time under Rule 5 Order 20 (3) include date, day, time and year?

Judgment

Supreme Court in the very beginning of the case allowed the application of appellant under Rule 9 Order 13 and set-aside the ex-parte order passed against them. Furthermore, Supreme Court also stated that under section 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Court is required to mention a specific day, date, year and time for the defendant’s appearance. This requirement cannot be done away with even if service is issued through publication under Order 5 Rule 20(3) by the orders of the Court. Moreover, Court said that word time under the said rule has to be read with section 27 and includes day, date, year and time.

Learning Outcome

From this decision, we learn that summons should include a fixed date, day, year and time for it to be valid in the eyes of law. It is a compulsory requirement and not an empty formality.  A mere statement saying that defendant should present himself before the Registrar of Court within 15 days from the date of service is not valid and will not stand in court.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. They heard...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Supreme Court Asks Petitioner to Approach Bombay High Court in PIL for CBI Probe in Disha Salian Case

On the 26th of October 2020, the Apex Court heard the PIL praying for a CBI probe into the death of Disha Salian. The...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -