IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.t MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL N0. ^] OF 2010 ARPELLANTS J^efendants / .....^t- •••"^ ^ •^^-y T^r....-'"" ^ »»»' *.*•"' VERSUS RESPONDENT ^PIaintiff Budhelal, S/o Jhuluva Lodhi, aged about 56 years, Krishna Kumar, S/o Budhelal Lodhi, aged about 35 years, Both are R/o Village Bundela, Tahsil Navagarh, District Durg (C.G.) Samaru, S/o Chhedilal Dewangan, aged about 48 years, R/o Mungeli, Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.) w^iy MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 d OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 111 •^- HIGHfM^^BCSHI-i^^saAl^WBn^ Siriaje®eiwh^HQn*bleShri^ystlcePrastt&nitl<siri^arNlshra M.A.NG^I/lftlQ ^PRELLftNTS RESPONDENf Versus Bwlhelalandanother Samaru :,;Shn'P.P.,yS^hy,^oy^llfcff::^e^a|p8l{ar^.^ ShH\^mlesh8^payee,^ui^^fcrf^ ,:M!SG.^?^N^OE%^^^^^^;^:1111E^iiDB^::GIW ORAIIOR0ER War^QW The trisil Court has dlsmlssecS the ^appell^ntB ©rder9f^te13of©.P.<3.fprse^!^ ^c^^fi^^QQ-^^W. (2) ^beHrespcmdept^la s' aRptication under |ax-parte]y(^fnenfrand ^lt fQF t^ Rs1,5C^QO^^ ^ ^X)7on^egroyrNtha^th^urnmGns^ ^rsFetumedwithanend^fseTOer^mad^^ '2007^that';:the.appe$lant^defeF t^Rt^ha¥e^re^ <3)-.|:'^^1n..hl^.appHc^^n3Ui^|^€^ ;i3/4^,^;l^ppeUar^^have.;stgted,i*hattise^summ^ '•.^•::':^l:,:^^:.:'^,llit''.::::'::-' ypbR^em.^e^eT.'by'GF^nai^^Ri^&jor^^ ::tiav^never;refysed'to'jaGeeptt^^:^otice^' '(4),:^:l'i^a!ii^,;^Qiy^:;l^e^^ ln:otlGe^.sem't^:^he\'a|p@p?^^rrta«"si^t^ '^^y^c^:';:l;::-;.;.:'::^;^^%^^ ^mlj^o^e-:^|th^pQ^^:de|8rtii^^tha^ 'ft^,;;nQtlG^^d^at'^h{|^f^:vhasjn|^^t^?cy^^ f^^'.,.''':.''''';^':l'';^''\?^^..'.' .thefe.lsno::greynGl^forsettin91^icle,.tte!'e^^rte^ec% I^N:: f ^^ '-:3L.-"": •'1-: !' :.:;; 1,.;' • ;': : -:.11 :^ -. (5) The flncling ^corele^ by ttie trial ©ourtthat the appeSSants have not refuted the ^cioreemej^ roade^^^^^^^ departmentispervers&mwewofthestatemeN applicatlon unc!er0Mer 9 We 13 ofG.^ have Gleariy stated ^ba^ ttiey have neve^^^ registered pc^ and further jn^^^p statedthattheyhaveneyerFefMsedtoTecelvean^^m (^ Lsamedtnal Gourthas^alSQfelli^ wastheappenar^^appHcsr^s^oshould^av^ the postal depg^enttQ pi^ethattheentfoisemerrt^^ facttheburdenlayupontheplatrrtlfftohavee^ ofthepostaSdepartmerrtatthetimeofheariRgirt^^^^^^ when the defenetaFrts ^re prc^eded ex^rte^ beyond doubt th^ the <!^(NanN have refysed tojw^ptt Rotfce. 1^''- 1'11::'.% (7) tn the ^atter crf ^efu Shiis^ff^^^^W^ f^port^ in 2W ff^ SC<;^ Hem'ble Supreme^^^^^ service^symmonsthroughtheprocessofCcsjrtllsmar^a^^ matter of SiKh^KymarSaNt^wafV^.Gsffpr^S^ reportedin2<%^^SCG3771heHon'fe>leSypFem|Courthastie^^t^ provisiQnscontainedjnOr?^5Ryle17&1S^G (8) I^amed coynset for the appeHarte^ubmlt that ih ^ew e^ pronouncement by Hon'ble the Sypr^e Gourt lijithe^^^^a^ judgments the tmpugned order oannot be s^^ tria{ Judge has not directed for servlce of summons'^f oi^inary mode and has stralghtway (lirectecl for service of sumrr^n^ 'i^!-';lr'';:.:l:.;:';l:;l::''l.::Y::^.::/:':^^ He aiso^ubmltsthat mtheeverrtlheappetlar^^^ F ^ notice the same shouid have been affix^i In their house In terms of the provtssons GQntalnect under Order 5 ruie 17 of G.P.G. (9) Inviewoftheji^mentsreT^es^foyHQffbleSupreme^^^C^ the case of frNfi! Bftusftan l^. ttnalA^af2tfancrifeer^ the cas& <rf SysN? Kcfmar SaNiarw^ GQfjv^et Singh sa«S off?ers(suprB)thisCQurtlssatlsfledthat etriNCoyrth^comm^ an error of (aw by not dlrecting ^rvlce of symmons thrbugh proeess df ^^>:y-/^/ '••. ;.;.^l;,.:^;.:':,/l^'^..'::^/.:.-;-.i.:;'.^ Coyrt. SlnGeHoeffortwasraacletoservethecl^fendantmaccordance withGrder5Ryte9(1)<rfG.P.C.whlGhtsmanciatory,t^h^^ service of notlce onthe appellant fenot prov^i. j (10) CQf^equer^y, this appeal stKx^eds;^ ^ Impugned oreler ts set-aslde. The ex-psfte ^udgmerrt ;and clecree passed by the tri^ Court on 08-05-2(X)8 is al|o set-a^^ CourtshaltpfoceedtodecldethesyitingiGCQrdslncewfthiaw. (11) No oreier as to costs. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge