Partly allowed

National Insurance Company Limited through Authorized Officer Dy. Manager v. M/S Banshidhar Gangaprasad Vastra Udhyog Private Limited

Rajasthan HC6 Feb 2019CMA/121/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held the appeal allowing it, set aside impugned order dismissing application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Directed trial court to decide after evidence on service. Appellant to deposit Rs. 1L with bank as FDR.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 22.10.2018 set aside. Trial court to decide application after evidence opportunity. Appellant to deposit Rs. 1,00,000 as FDR within six weeks.

National Insurance Company Limited through… — Execution and Attachment | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 121/2019

¶3

National Insurance Company Limited Through Authorized Officer Dy. Manager, J.r.o. L.i.c. Building High Court Circle Jaipur

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

M/s Banshidhar Gangaprasad Vastra Udhyog Private Limited, B-18 Shiv Marg Banipark Jaipur Through Properietor Purushottam Das S/o Late Kishanchand (Since Deceased)

¶7

Vinod Kumar Agarwal S/o Late Shri Purushottam Das Agarwal, R/o B-18 Shiv Marg Banipark Jaipur

¶8

Rajkumar Agarwal W/o Shri Vinod Kumar Agarwal, R/o B- 18 Shiv Marg Banipark Jaipur

¶9

Smt. Smrati Goyal W/o Shri Sumit Goyal D/o Late Shri Vinod Kumar Agarwal, R/o B-18 Shiv Marg Banipark Jaipur

¶10

Smt. Manisha Agarwal W/o Shri Priyank Agarwal D/o Late Shri Vinod Kumar Agarwal, R/o B-18 Shiv Marg Banipark Jaipur

¶11

Smt. Anuja Saini W/o Shri Amit Saini D/o Late Shri Vinod Kumar Agarwal, R/o B-18 Shiv Marg Banipark Jaipur

¶12

Kumari Sonam Agarwal D/o Late Shri Vinod Kumar Agarwal, R/o B-18 Shiv Marg Banipark Jaipur

¶13

Nakul Agarwal S/o Late Shri Vinod Kumar Agarwal, R/o B- 18 Shiv Marg Banipark Jaipur

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.P. Vijay For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singhal

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA

Judgment / Order

06/02/2019

(2 of 4)

[CMA-121/2019]

This Civil Misc. Appeal has been directed against the order dated 22.10.2018 passed by Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur in Application No.13/2017, whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC with a cost of Rs.2,000/-.

¶22

Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent/plaintiff No.1 filed a civil suit against the appellant for rendition of accounts. The suit was contested by the appellantdefendant. Ultimately, the suit was decreed and a preliminary decree was passed on 30.08.1991. The plaintiff submitted an application for passing final decree in the matter on 30.10.1999. Notices for the same were issued to the appellant but the appellant failed to appear in the court and ultimately an ex-parte decree was passed on 16.01.2014. The application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed by the appellant for setting aside the said ex-parte decree. The same was dismissed by the trial court vide impugned order dated 22.10.2018.

¶23

Hence this appeal:

¶24

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the service of summons were never effected upon the appellant. The summons were issued in the name of the Manager, M/s Ruby General Insurance Company, M.I. Road, Jaipur, which could not be duly served and were returned by the process server with a report that M/s Ruby General Insurance Company could not be found at the address mentioned in the notice. Despite that, the Trial Court sent the notices on the same address through registered post. The appellant never refused to accept the notices sent through registered post. It is also submitted that service of summons should be effected as per the statutory provisions as

¶25

(3 of 4)

¶26

[CMA-121/2019]

¶27

provided under Order 5 Rule 17 CPC. Therefore, the ex-parte proceedings initiated by the trial court were wrong. The trial court has not been considered the above facts in the right perspective.

¶28

On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffrespondents has opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment and order dated 22.10.2018 passed by the trial court.

¶29

Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that in this matter evidence is to be taken by the trial court as to whether the summons were duly served upon the appellant or not. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 22.10.2018 is set aside. Learned trial court is directed to decide the application filed by the appellant under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC after affording opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence in this regard. The applicant-appellant is directed to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- with the trial court within a period of six weeks from today failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to this Court. On such deposit being made by the appellant-defendant, the same be invested in the FDR in a nationalized bank for a period of six months.

¶30

Office is directed to send back the record of the case to the trial Court forthwith.

¶31

In the meantime, operation of the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.10.2018 shall remain stayed.

¶32

Both the parties are directed to remain present in trial court on 15.03.2019. The trial court is directed to decide the application

¶33

(4 of 4)

¶34

[CMA-121/2019]

¶35

expeditiously but not later than three months from the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶36

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

¶37

Mohit42

National Insurance Company Limited through Authorized Officer Dy. Manager v. M/S Banshidhar Gangaprasad Vastra Udhyog Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Company Limited through Authorized Officer Dy. Manager v. M/S Banshidhar Gangaprasad Vastra Udhyog Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Lal Jain S/O Sh. Rakhabchand Ji Jain Vs Rajkumar Sethiya S/O Sh. Lalchand Ji Sethiya

Ratan Lal Jain S/O Late Sh. Rakhabchand Ji Jain Vs Rajkumar Sethiya S/O Sh. Lalchand Ji Sethiya

Smt Damodari Devi Vs Murlidhar and Others

Jitendra Singh Alias Jeetu Vs Om Prakash and Others

Smt Rupanti and Others Vs Suresh Chand Meena and Others

Chaturbhuj Meena Vs Smt Kishkandha Bai and Ors.