IN THE HON?BLE HIGH COURT Ot JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH M.A.NO. l^ /2010 ^ Mohd. Azad, S/o- Late Shri Asgar, Caste-Muslim, Aged about 45 years, R/o- Giridih Dafai Sonawani, Chirimiri, P.S.- Chirimiri, Tehsil-Manendragarh, District - Korea, Clihattisgarh. VERSUS ^•^ Appellaiit/Defendant c-^'^l' ^ ^ f_ Sema(wrongly mentioned as Sema actually it is Soma), ^ ^ ] S/o-Shri Shankar !;^ ^ Aged about 43 years, R/o- Domanhil Colliery, Chirimiri, P.S. -Chirimiri, Tehsil - Manendragarh, Distt. Korea, Chhattisgarh. Non-AppeIlant/Plaintiff MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 OF CODE OF GEVIL PROCEDURE :ij^i- ^ ;G r;:M l^t iiiGaEt^otrR^€)p^i@i^i1^^ S.B: Hon'lb^SlinRi^sftantKi^ M.^. N0.18/2010 APPELIANT ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ M ^^s^ RESPONDENT : Sema Aopearance: .,.^'.''1.\:::.::.;:''';';;'1' ''^ ShriPat^Shm^ava^^^c^^ ShriParagKolfiG^ •j .•©R .ORI3ER'.:'1/1''','41:-::1:.-^ ?.:',C1^.08.201:0) •-,':. :,:.'^ This appeal under Oixler 43^ ^ :j Code hencefbrth CPC lias })^^TG&^e^ by thte defendant whose application under Qrder 9 Rule 13 bfC par^judgmentand<iec^dated^^9^0^ the trial court. 1 (2) The plaintif^respondeiit had preferred a s|uit fbr recovery of •.l' Rs. 1 laKh fom the^^^^a^ ^.::L''^'.^\;r..'•'.•:-' parteon 25/09/2007 whentheappeUant,^ .i:::''^.'':;;'..'.''''.:'^\-:'')^ summons issuedto himbyfheregisteredp<N.% (S) The appellant moved an application ,under |OrS3er 9 IRule 13 pf ^,'.'.:..^'/:;:^:' CPCcm 16/01/2008 onsubmissionthathe'never^^^l^ .1 /' '.•'": ."••'•' of the suit and that fee^^s strm served^ withllte aq^Gatio^ for execution ofthe e^ setting aside ex-parte decree. Contentioa 6f fhe jrespbndent/plaintiff was thatfhe notice issuedby^ registered postGamelbackw^anendorsemeht^^^^^^ -2- :^ ^, £, :€ -^. -t^ man tiiat flie defendant re&sed to accept fhe notice, therefore the trial court rightly proceeded ^p^uls afterbein^ satisfied^ the defendant is complete on account ofhis refasal. (4) The trial court rejected Ihe application fbr setting aside ex- parte order by observing that from the submlssion made by the appellant in Ifae MJC prQceedmg, it would appear that he knows tfae pQstmanoftheareaan^tfaeFefbreitcamicrtbebelievedt^ who knows the defendant would make wrong or false endorsemetit in f'.;.'1 ." ; ' ' '::';:- the envelope and that as lorig as presumption about correctness ofthe endcffsement is notdisplaced it vnU be deemedithatthe servi tried to be affected on tiie defendant and he refused to accept the .notice./ ; :, • '::.'^..;1:1:1. ,.:1-.,'. • : 1 (5) %e appellarit has argued fhat the impugned order N^ passed on presumptions ^v^ whether infact the post man had recbrded the endorsement truly or corfeGtlyornot.HealsosubmitsthatthetrialGQUrtnev^ nc^ce byordinaiymode andthat since notice byordmarym not issued there is non compliance ofprovisioris jcontained ia Order 5 Rule 17 and 19 oftheCodeofCivit Procedure. i (6) Contesting the said argument of the leamed counsel fbr the appellan^ fhe learned counsel appearing for ;fhe respondent has arguedlihMmviewofthematerialonrecordandstat^ the appellan^efendant, it is proyed^ that^^^h^ notice and that service by aJSb^on would not^ b^ required m view of ,-3. ^ c •,y !T ^: the State amendment made in tiie provisions of Order 5 Rule 17 of f CPC, whereby a proviso has been ^dded to the efifect that "provided that where a special service has been issued and tiie defendant refuses tosigntheacknowledgementitshallnotbenecessarytoaffixacbpy as directed hereinafter." (7) From the record of the MJC pTOceedinjg and the materials available therein, tt would appear that the trial court straightaway proceeded to affeet service of aotice on the defendant by registered post and that no effort was ever made to slewe the defendant by ordinary mode through the process ofthe court. j (8) In the matter oflndu BhushanVs. Munna Lal and another (2007) 14 SCC 42, the Hon'Ne Supreme Court in para 11 of the report has held fhat "a J:?are perusal of Order 5 Rule 9 clearly shows that service through process of Gourt is mandatory. This position is clearfromtheuseoftheword"may"(sic"shaU")mtheprovision." (9) In the matter of Sushil Kumar Sabharwal Vs. Gurpreet Singh and others (2002) 5 SCC 377, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Gourt that proviso contained in Orderl 5 Rule 17 and 18 of CPC are mandatory. (10) In view ofthelawlaiddown by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Indu Bhushan Vs. Mwma Lal and anofher (supra) and in the matter of SushU Kumar SabharwaljVs. Gurpreet Singh and others (supra) the argument advanGed by leamed counsel for the respondentfhatmviewoftheadditionoftheprpyisotoOrder5Rule ^- €•' o ''€• ^ —-.>?; ^.. 17 ofCPC in tlie Sl^^ o^ mode is ncrt mandatory, eannot be a^ Gourt liad no occasion to consider the State amendment, yet in tiie matter of Indu Wwshan ^ Supreme Courthas interpreted the provisions contairied in Qrder 5 Rule9ofCPCan(ln(^theprovisionscont^ GPC. The addition pfproviso by tfie Stateam and not under Rule 9 ofOrder 5 ofCPC. j (11) In view ofthe above, tfais court is satisfied that since the trial TOurtnevermadeanyeffbrttoser^e^^^ through process of the ccrtu^ GomplianGeQfflieprQvisicmscpnfamedinp T''.';^.1.' ^^.^ :'.<:;..r (12) The^alcourthasfhuscommitted^^ set aside the ex-parte deeree. j (13)Themstantappealsucce^^ setaside. E^partejudgment and4ecree dated^5/09/2007 is Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge