The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed an appeal against an order rejecting an application to set aside an ex-parte decree. The Court held that service via newspaper publication was proper, the appellant had knowledge of the suit, and the appeal was an attempt to delay execution.
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.
Digitally signed by CHITRA CHITRA SANJAY SANJAY SONAWANE SONAWANE Date: 2024.05.03 AO-141-2024.doc 00:18:57 +0530
Chitra Sonawane.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Appeal from Order No.141 of 2024 With Civil Application No.341 of 2019 With Civil Application No.2 of 2024
Avon Elastomers India 8A, Shyam Market, Hing Ki Mandi, Agra-282 003 Through Mr. Gagan Monga Partner of the appellant
... Appellant (Ori. Defendant)
Vs.
Multibase India Ltd 74/5-6, Daman Industrial Area, Village Kadaiya, Nani Daman
... Respondent (Ori. Plaintiff)
Mr Karthik Rajashekhar along with Mr Arif Sayed for the appellant. Mr Vivek Khemka for the respondent.
Coram : R. N. Laddha, J. Date : 30 April 2024.
P.C. :
In the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated in Civil Application No.341 of 2019, the delay of 13 days in filing the Appeal from Order stands condoned
Page No. 1 of 5 ____________________________________________30 April 2024
Chitra Sonawane. AO-141-2024.doc
and the application is disposed of.
Page No. 2 of 5
30 April 2024
Chitra Sonawane. AO-141-2024.doc
the service of summons through the Court’s bailiff, the respondent directly served the summons through paper publication. He further contends that the respondent did not publish the summons in the local newspaper, which has wide circulation in Agra.
Chitra Sonawane. AO-141-2024.doc
evident that the respondent filed the suit against the appellant to recover money. In this suit, an ex-parte decree was passed on 18 June 2012. Subsequently, the respondent obtained an order to transfer the decree for execution to the Court of Civil Judge in Agra. The appellant received summons to appear in the execution proceedings on 10 March 2014 at the same address. However, the appellant claims that this address was incomplete and incorrect. Initially, the suit summons was returned with the note ‘insufficient address’ followed by ‘found locked’. Consequently, the respondent sought permission from the trial Court to publish the suit summons in a newspaper. As per the provisions of Order V Rule 20(a) of the CPC, the service of summons through public notice is considered proper notice.
Page No. 4 of 5 ____________________________________________30 April 2024
Chitra Sonawane. AO-141-2024.doc
decreed in 2012, resulting in the respondent being deprived of the benefits of the decree. This appeal seems to be an attempt to delay the execution proceedings.
Page No. 5 of 5
____________________________________________30 April 2024
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing the appeal from the order rejecting the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC should be condoned.
Whether the trial Court acted correctly in rejecting the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC due to improper service of summons.
Whether the appellant had knowledge of the suit and the order rejecting the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Avon Elastomers India
Multibase India Ltd
R. N. Laddha
As recorded by the court registry
6 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
