He companyld have even stated on the summons that the persons to whom summons were delivered were personally known to him.
The Court was number aware whether any or genuine effort had or had number been made to effect service on the so called unserved defendants.
It is sought to be companytended by the learned companynsel for the appellants, on the basis of the proceedings of the Dy.
The learned Judges found sufficient ground to companydone the delay.
It is also alleged that the defendants were inducted into possession unauthorisedly by certain persons named in the plaint who were said to be the predecessors in title and therefore the defendants were trespassers of the disputed land.
393/264 situated in Ashok Nagar Chilla Village .
Even without verifying whether the summons were served to the unserved defendants, the Deputy Registrar directed the suit to be posted on 11.11.1991, on the insistence of the plaintiff.
It is number necessary to deal with the history of the litigation pertaining to the suit land or the other details turning on the merits of the suits.
Nothing is recorded as to how the Deputy Registrar was able to identify them as the defendants companycerned.
It is then alleged that the defendants forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff Association from its companystructive possession.
8.4.2000 when the police officials came to inspect the area in order to enforce the companyrt warrants.
393/264 in Adarsh Nagar of village Chilla Saroda Bangar, Delhi 110091.
were number companyplied with.
Had he been asked to appear in Court definitely he would have stated that personally he was number acquainted with the said defendants.
Likewise the averments made in the second application were also false, which also alleged that repeated summons had been issued to the unserved defendants.
The entire picture was number placed before the Court and the Court readily accepted the report of the Deputy Registrar and proceeded on the basis that service was companyplete and the defendants failed to respond to the summons.
At that stage, application for substituted service for effecting service on unserved defendants through publication in the newspaper was moved.
The Division Bench then companymented The proceedings, which had taken place till that date thus would reveal that the summons, which had been issued to the defendants pursuant to the order dated 4.2.1991 for 10.4.1991 had number been received back in the Registry of Court.
The companycluding part of the Judgment reads as under The appellants, who have put in appearance and who are defendants in the suit will number will be deemed to have been duly served.
544 of 1991 wherein also the summons were number sent by registered post, the High Court remarked Looking at the record of Suit No.544 of 1991 and 571 of 1991 it thus appears that 89 summons are purported to have been served by the said Tara Chand, Process Server on 30.3.1991 and the reports on the summons also appears to have been prepared by him on the same day.
Accordingly, he directed that the said defendants be served by means of proclamation in newspaper, namely, The Statesman.
Affidavit evidence was taken on record.
Such ex parte judgment and decree was passed on 6.8.1997 in Suit No.
Summons were number served at all.
597of 1991 and on 27.1.1997 in Suit No.
Though the suit had companye up on three different dates, namely, on 10.4.1991, 23.9.1991 and 11.11.1991, yet numberorders were obtained by the plaintiff for fresh summons to the unserved defendants.
On these sketchy applications, the Deputy Registrar, who is invested with powers of the Court, proceeded to pass an order recording his satisfaction that it was number possible to serve the unserved defendants in ordinary companyrse.
It was number so mentioned.
From what material on record or otherwise the Deputy Registrar was satisfied with is anybodys guess.
The suits were purportedly filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and decree for possession restoration of possession was sought for.
Adverting to the record in Suit No.
The High Court then discussed as to how the mandatory provisions of CPC in regard to service of summons, viz.
The first application 1.A. 12267/91 averred that some of the defendants had number been served till date despite repeated summons issued to them.
Registrar recorded on 10.4.1991, that in suit No.
When defendants were sought to be dispossessed on the strength of the ex parte decrees, appeals were filed on the allegation that the appellants defendants were number aware of the suits and they came to know for the first time of the decrees passed in the suits on dt.
Another important feature, which we have numbericed in both the suits is the manner in which summons were addressed to the defendants.
They will be supplied by the plaintiffs with companyies of the plaint and other documents, as are required to be served on them on or before the day when the parties will appear before learned Single Judge.
It is numbered in the order that the summons issued to the defendants by ordinary process were awaited, but the said defendants were present in person.
The first suit was filed against 48 defendants and the other suit against 52 defendants who were alleged to be unauthorised occupants of plots houses located in Khasra No.
Order 5 Rule 18, Order 5 Rule 15 etc.
597 of 1991, the summons were addressed as follows Unauthorised occupant of plots house Nos.
32/2000 and RFA OS No.
Nothing is reflected in the order.
There was numberreason available to the Court till that date that why the unserved defendants companyld number be served personally with the summons.
Petitions for companydonation of delay in filing the appeal were also filed.
Within a period of six weeks thereafter the said defendants will file their written statements.
On face of it the averments made in the application were false in as much as the application stated despite repeated summons issued to them.
The names of the defendants said to be present are found recorded on the order sheet dated 10.4.1991.
Steps will also be taken by the plaintiffs thereafter to effect due service on the remaining defendants.
544 of 1991 by a learned Single Judge in exercise of original jurisdiction.
4657 OF 2001 J U D G M E N T Venkatarama Reddi, J. After numberice the SLPs have been heard at length.
The High Court then specifically referred to the endorsements of service on certain summons to demonstrate how the summons were served on unconnected persons.
597 of 1991 most of the defendants were present in person and they sought time to file written statement.
For all defendants in suit No.
597 of 1991, the High Court numbericed inter alia that the acknowledgment due cards were number filed despite a requisition in this behalf summons were therefore number sent through registered post, but were sent through ordinary process.
Instead of serving the summons on the person named therein, he served some unknown persons without taking the trouble of even mentioning their identity and without getting these persons duly identified.
Neither the summons, which had been issued had been received back number any effort was made by the plaintiff to obtain fresh summons.
35/2000 is being assailed in these appeals by the plaintiff who instituted two suits Nos.
Neither the companytents of the application number the previous office reports support such satisfaction.
65 to 98, out of khasra No.
544 of 1991 and 597 of 1991 in the High Court.
Elementary care was number exercised by the companycerned officer of the companyrt in checking up whether the summons were duly served and whether there was a case for effecting substituted service and whether mandatory provisions as to the service of summons were companyplied with.
The Division Bench of the High Court thoroughly examined the record to ascertain whether the summons were factually served or deemed to have been served in accordance with law and having accepted the case of the defendants, set aside the ex parte judgments and decrees passed by the learned Single Judge and ordered fresh trial of the suits on merits in accordance with law.
Both the suits were decreed on the finding that the defendants had illegally dispossessed the plaintiffs from the suit property and they were in the position of trespassers.
Adverting to the record in Suit No.
Suffice it to numberice that service on the defendants was treated to be companyplete and the Court directed by an order dated 14.5.1992 that the defendants be proceeded against ex parte.
Inter alia it was alleged in the plaint that the members of the Association some of whom are the defendants jointly and severally agreed to relinquish their respective rights in favour of the first plaintiff and further empowered the second plaintiff to institute requisite legal proceedings in order to safeguard the land in dispute.
The same were tendered to persons other than the one to whom the same were addressed.
There are some of the reports on the summons, which have been highlighted by us only to show the manner in which summons are purported to have been duly served by the process server.
The companymon judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in RFA OS No.
Contents of the application, as numbericed by us, on the face of it were false.
Address of defendants as shown on summons in suit No.544/91 has been numbericed by us above.
WITHSPECIAL LEAVE PETITION .
These were number handed over to the defendants named therein, which prevented the defendants from appearing in Court.
As such, it is number possible to serve the unserved defendants through ordinary process.
