Single judge Bench dismissed the writ petition challenging a lower court's order condoning delay to set aside an ex parte decree in a specific performance suit, finding no perversion in the court's discretion despite procedural defects in summons service.
Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 wp 198.13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 198 OF 2013
Sushilabai Santoba Jadhav .. Petitioner
Versus
Munjaji Keshav Shinde .. Respondent
Shri R. N. Bharaswadkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 10TH JANUARY, 2013.
PER COURT :
. The present petitioner had filed suit for specific performance of contract. The suit came to be decreed. The respondent filed an application for setting aside ex-parte decree, along with an application for condonation of delay. The Trial Court allowed the application for condonation of delay. Aggrieved thereby present writ petition.
2 wp 198.13
the panchanama and serving the summons. The learned counsel submits that the summons was served by invoking Order 5 Rule 17 of the C. P. C. and the procedure has been followed. After the present respondent refused the service of summons, the bailiff affixed the summons on the house of the respondent and also conducted the panchanama in presence of the police patil and other witnesses. This would show that the total procedure has been followed. The respondent is well aware of the pendency of present suit as is reflected from the proceedings in the criminal case. The Court below has not considered all these aspects. The respondent deliberately remained absent.
3 wp 198.13
the copy of the plaint. The summons has to be served along with copy of the plaint. In absence of the same, it would not be deemed to be a proper service.
[ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
bsb/Jan. 13
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the conduct of panchanama and service of summons complied with Order 5 Rule 20 CPC provisions.
Whether the discretion exercised in condoning delay for setting aside ex-parte decree was perverse.
Whether the writ petition challenging the ex-parte decree should be entertained.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sushilabai Santoba Jadhav
Munjaji Keshav Shinde
S. V. GANGAPURWALA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
