Appeal dismissed. Appellant challenged the dismissal of his IA seeking recall of an order proceeding ex-parte against him due to deliberate avoidance of summons. Held service valid; appeal dismissed.
Recall application and underlying suit appeal dismissed; appellant to face suit ex-parte.
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.
$~30
Through: Mr.Ravi Kapoor with Ms.Gauri Puri, Ms.Aditi Singhal and Mr.Rishabh Tehlan, Advocates.
versus
CHANDNI CHOWDHARY AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Ms.Beenashaw N.Soni with Ms.Mansi Jain and Ms.Ann Joseph, Advocates for R-1. Mr.Priyesh Mohan Srivastava, Advocate for R-5 (Through VC) Mr.Awijut Paliwal, Advocate for R-6. Mr.Karn Bhardwaj with Mr.Rajat Gaba, Mr.Saurabh Dahiya and Mr.Shubham Singh, Advocates for R- 7.
Mr.Ajit Dayal with Ms.Meenakshi Joshi and Ms.Aprajita Verma, Advocates for R-8 & 9.
% Date of Decision: 22nd October, 2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, CJ : (ORAL)
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) 151/2024
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:23.10.2024 18:56:12
Page 1 of 4
subject properties bearing no. 30 Park Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and W/No. 20, H/No. BV/243, Sunder Nagar, Pathankot, Punjab – 145001 along with the movable properties of her mother, late Ms. Raj Rani Ahuja.
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) 151/2024
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:23.10.2024 18:56:12
Page 2 of 4
Ors” was brought to the notice of the Appellant.
“10. The registry has in the office noting dated 09.10.2023 recorded that the process server [on 16.09.2023] had furnished a report duly attested by Civil
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) 151/2024
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:23.10.2024 18:56:12
Page 3 of 4
Judge Sr. Division, Pathankot on 18.09.2023 that defendant no. 1 is avoiding the service of summons and therefore, summons have been affixed at the door of defendant no. 1. This Court had summoned the file of the registry which contains the actual report of the process server dated 16.09.2023. The process server has reported that he has visited the address of defendant no. 1 several times, however, upon learning of the arrival of the process server, defendant no. 1 becomes unavailable. The process server has reported that he reasonably believes that defendant no. 1 has knowledge of the pendency of the case and the summons. The process server has further reported that he has also contacted defendant no. 1 on his mobile no. 94640-70423 and apprised him about the summons. The process server has reported that in these facts he has affixed the copy of the summons and the suit on the door of the given address of defendant no. 1. The signatures of Ms. Poonam, Municipal Corporator Ward No. 27, Pathankot have been obtained on the summons as a proof of affixation. The affixation of summons under Order V Rule 17 CPC has therefore, been duly followed by the process server in this case.
xxx xxx xxx
16. To sum up, the record of this Court shows that defendant no. 1 avoided service of summons in this suit in June and July, 2023 though his servant Mr. Sudhakar was duly informed about the same. Thereafter, defendant no. 1 was in fact, served with notice on 16.09.2023 through ordinary process and e-mode i.e., mobile by the process server. In addition, defendant no.1 was also served with notice in I.A. No. 11627/2023 on 28.06.2023 on his mobile and through approved courier; and with notice in I.A. No. 15898/2023 on 23.08.2023 on his mobile and e-mail. Thus, the defendant no.1 as per the record was served on at least four separate occasions with summons and notices in the present proceedings, however, defendant no.1 elected to not join the proceedings.”
MANMOHAN, CJ
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
OCTOBER 22, 2024/KA
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) 151/2024
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:23.10.2024 18:56:12
Page 4 of 4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Single Judge's dismissal of a recall application where the defendant deliberately avoided summons after multiple service attempts.
Whether the service of summons was valid despite the appellant's initial failure to join proceedings.
Whether the learned Single Judge erred in closing the defendant's right to file a written statement ex-parte.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Vaibhav Ahuja
Chandni Choudhary
Manmohan
Tushar Rao Gedela
As recorded by the court registry
An appeal to a Division Bench against an order made by a single judge on the original side of the High Court.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
