Allowed

Ranbir Saini and Another v. Parmesh Chand and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC5 Apr 2023CMPMO/139/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Trial Court's order dismissing a civil suit for non-deposit of publication charges required for substituted service, granting the petitioner a final opportunity to comply before the statutory deadline.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting aside suit dismissed for non-deposit of charges is set aside; opportunity granted to deposit charges by 26.04.2023.

Ranbir Saini and Another Vs Parmesh… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

	CMPMO No. 139/2023 Decided on: 05.04.2023
Ranbir Singh & Anr.	…Petitioners
Versus
Parmesh Chand and others	....Respondents.

¶3

………………………………………………………………………………. Coram

¶4

Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶5

For the petitioner: Mr. Sat Parkash, Advocate.

¶6

For the respondents:

¶7

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶8

Petitioners were the plaintiffs before the learned Trial

¶9

Court. They moved an application under Order 5 Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to serve defendants No.4 and 5 (proforma respondents No.4 and 5 herein) by way of substituted service in the form of publication. This application was allowed by the learned Trial Court on 09.12.2022. Summons were ordered to be served on the aforesaid defendants by publication in “Amar Ujala” newspaper. Publication charges were ordered to be deposited within 7 days. Publication was ordered to be issued and report was called for 20.02.2023. Petitioners/plaintiffs failed to deposit the publication charges within the stipulated period, hence, on 20.02.2023 their suit qua proforma defendants No.4 and 5 was

¶10

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

¶12

dismissed. Aggrieved against order dated 20.02.2023, dismissing their suit qua proforma defendants No.4 and 5 (proforma respondents No.4 and 5 herein), the petitioners have come up in the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶14

In view of the nature of the order being proposed to be passed, no notice of this petition is required to be issued to the respondents. Even otherwise, the documents on record reveal that defendant No.3 had been proceeded ex-parte by the learned Trial Court and defendants No.4 and 5 had not been served. The suit is yet at the initial stage.

¶15

In terms of the impugned order, the suit stands dismissed qua proforma defendants No.4 and 5 for want of petitioners’/plaintiffs’ depositing publication charges within the stipulated period. The impugned order cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality as the petitioners/plaintiffs had evidently not complied with order dated 09.12.2022. They had not deposited requisite publication charges in terms of this order. Yet taking into consideration the fact that the suit is at the initial stage as according

¶16

to learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs, the written statements are yet to be filed even by those defendants, who have been served in the civil suit, it will be in the interest of justice, in

¶17

¶18

case, the petitioners/plaintiffs are afforded one opportunity to take steps for the service of proforma defendants No.4 and 5 in terms of the learned Trial Court order dated 09.12.2022. Hence, the order dated 20.02.2023, passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing the suit filed by the petitioners qua defendants No.4 and 5 is set aside. Petitioners/plaintiffs are granted one opportunity to take all requisite steps including depositing the publication charges for the service of proforma defendants No.4 and 5 in terms of order dated 9.12.2022 by 26.04.2023, whereafter steps, in accordance with law, shall be taken for the service of the aforesaid defendants. It is made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioners/plaintiffs for the aforesaid purpose. This order is passed subject to the petitioners depositing costs of Rs.2500/- with the District Legal Service Authority, Chamba, H.P. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶19

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶20

05^th April 2023 (rohit)

Ranbir Saini and Another v. Parmesh Chand and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranbir Saini and Another v. Parmesh Chand and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhawan Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Sikandar Vs State of Hp

Bijay Thakur Vs State of Hp

State of Hp and Anr. Vs Bhupinder Pal Mahajan

Suman Sharma Vs State of Hp

Nitin Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Hp and Anr.