Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

In the Realm of Confusion and Literacy: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order, Allows Defendant to Contest Chit Fund Recovery Suit

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the High Court of Delhi delved into the intricacies of procedural law, particularly highlighting the impact of literacy and confusion in the process of serving summons. The court set aside an earlier order that had dismissed the defendant’s application to contest a suit for recovery of dues by a chit fund company.

The pivotal legal issue revolved around the service of summons under Order XXXVII Rule 4, Order XXXVII Rule 3(2), and Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The case raised questions regarding the adequacy and legitimacy of the summons service process, especially when the defendant claims non-receipt due to literacy issues and confusion stemming from multiple suits.

The plaintiff, M/S P Singh Chit Fund Pvt Ltd, filed a suit for recovery under Order XXXVII Rule 4 of the CPC against the defendant, Manish Gupta, for non-payment of Rs. 90,000/- with an interest rate. Despite the service of summons, the defendant did not appear in court, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant later moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC, which was dismissed by the trial court, citing that the defendant had indeed received the summons. This decision was challenged in the High Court.

Receipt of Summons: The court observed that there was substantial confusion due to the involvement of multiple suits between the parties. It noted that Mr. Satbir, an alleged employee of the defendant who received the summons, was not sufficiently literate, leading to the non-delivery of the summons to the defendant.

Miscommunication and Literacy Concerns: The court recognized the potential for confusion and miscommunication, particularly given Mr. Satbir’s limited literacy skills. This aspect played a crucial role in the court’s decision to set aside the earlier order.

Opportunity for Defense: Emphasizing the principle of fairness and the right to be heard, the court granted the defendant another chance to defend himself in the suit.

The High Court set aside the impugned order dated 23.05.2018 and directed the defendant to deposit a sum of Rs. 45,000/- with the Trial Court. The defendant was ordered to file an appearance within 10 days, and the court stayed the operation of the execution proceedings. The matter is listed for further proceedings on 01.06.2024.

Date of Decision: 09 April 2024

Manish Gupta vs M/S P Singh Chit Fund Pvt Ltd

Latest Legal News