A civil revision was filed against an exparte decree passed for setting aside a default decree, alleging improper service of summons due to defective address. The court dismissed the revision at the admission stage.
Civil Revision No. 1/2006 and M.C.P. No. 11/2005 were dismissed at the stage of admission.
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.
IS~
:;1-—
f^^
^1/^
..^w^^
^•^°^ ..^•v"^w< . ^"•":'^^v"}^ 9"ft).W"v
»'e^r.--'^'T''A^"""
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.l 35
CIVIL REVISION N0. /°0 /2006
APPLICANT
^ PLAINTIFF
Shyamlal Shrivas
Aged about 37'years S/o. Lachhi Ram Shrivas R/o. Chhotupara, Tahsil Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham
VERSUS
RESPONDENT Utt.am Kumar, aged about DEFENDANT 33 years, S/o. Panchu Ram S h rivas, R/o. Da iha ndih, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.)
•v^"_ __ --.—.'
CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE
^"^___
M
XI-HC-78
3^ '^<i4id<4, ^TH'yli<s, Rldl^^<
, (^.R< ^o. /C?0 +11+1^1 ffl+IICtl ^200^
3T^?T q^FT (^l^^ff)
| 3TT^T^T^i cTS?T3TT^T9b^icb |
5'^TT^R:^f?cT3T1^T | <=bi^^41vi ^i^c-iT^:tec^'<(^^i< ^3:rf^R'3:TT^T |
|---|---|---|
| 08.03.2007 | ||
| Applicant by Shri Harj Heard on admission. The applicant is aggri poissed by Additional Distri Case No, 4 of 2005 whe defendant/non-applicant het passed against him in CivJl w<xsallowed. |
sh Vardhoai Sharma, Advocate. ^ved by an order dated 17.03.2006 ^t Judge (FTC), Kablrdham <n Misc, ^eby the opplication flled by the |
|
| Leamed counsel for Basant Siwh & anolher Vs |
^he applicant has placed reliance on <br>Roman CathoUc Mission AIR 2002 |
|
| SC 3557. | ||
| I have perused the i | order <xnd contains cogent aside the exparte6ecre&. |
|
| Learned counsel for | the cpplicant dld not di^)ute the | |
| hisaffidavit which stated t | were also not examined. A factthatthe defendant/re^ notice sent by 1+ie Court. Prasad in whose presence - |
|
| application was also not s | ^nt to the clefendont. The only |
XI-HC-78
3^r^n^n^pT, ^TH^^KO, ^<ni<iy
. G ^ A^c/OC <-TTR€rll Sb441ch
^ 2006
3TT^T^ra^ ('i?^6'^)
| 3TT^T^T^TW cTSTT3T^?T5b^l<^ |
5^TT^K^cT3:n^T ^^ | chl<Mfd4l4^ll^^lT^*^=6<(^^<l< ^3:r1^T3TT^T |
|---|---|---|
| .w^ | summon which was issued b | was returned unserved as ^ the address 9iven which s |
| In -riiis view of the ma atthe stageofadmission. M.C.P.No.llSS of 200^ stands dismissed. |
tter, this Civil Kevision is dismissed for stay @f the procesdmgs also Sd/- DilipRaosahebDeshmukh Judge |
P.T.O.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the civil revision is maintainable despite material irregularity in service of summons due to defective address and non-availability of the defendant.
Whether the Additional District Judge exercised jurisdiction illegally or illegally in the exercise of jurisdiction not vested in him.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Roman Catholic MissionReferred¶20
Roman Catholic Mission AIR 2002 SC 3557 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shyamlal Shrivas
Uttam Kumar
Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
