Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute Properties Acquired By Gift During Marriage Remain Separate Property Of Spouse Under French Civil Code; Husband Entitled To Half Share Only In Community Assets: Madras High Court Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Closure Of Human Trafficking Complaint, Flags Lack Of Bona Fides Access To Justice Cannot Be Denied When Tribunal Is Not Functioning': Calcutta High Court Holds Writ Maintainable Under Article 226 Amid Stalled Conciliation Proceedings Violation Of Natural Justice Overrides Bar On Maintainability Under Section 18 MSMED Act: Orissa High Court Panic In A Train Does Not Mean Self-Destruction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants ₹8 Lakh Compensation For Passenger's Death In Stampede Section 101 JJ Act | Date Of Knowledge Of Order, Not Mere Knowledge Of Disposal, Commences Limitation Period: Delhi High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Order Declaring Inam Land As Govt Property Without Determining Occupancy Rights Proviso To Section 125(3) CrPC Does Not Limit Enforcement Of Monetary Relief Orders Under Section 20 DV Act: Telangana High Court Regularization Of Deviation Within Permissible Plot Envelope Governed By Uniform Fee Schedule, Arbitrary 5X Penalty Unsustainable: J&K&L High Court Man Who Blackmailed Woman With Her Own Nude Photos To Rape Her Repeatedly Can't Escape Conviction Merely Because His Voice Sample Wasn't Taken: Delhi High Court Arbitration Clause In Sale Agreement Cannot Be Invoked If Subject Matter Involves Third-Party Title Disputes: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Errs In Dismissing Amendment Plea If New Facts Emerge From Written Statement: Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Compensation For Own Wrong': Gujarat High Court Rules Tortfeasors & Legal Heirs Cannot Claim Motor Accident Damages Under Section 166 MV Act Allahabad High Court Pulls Up Police And Magistrates Over Illegal Remand Of Juvenile Accused Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) Hindu Marriage Act | Spouse Seeking Divorce On Grounds Of Cruelty And Desertion Must Prove Allegations With Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Cannot Let Land Become Banjar: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Appointment Of Receiver Under BNSS Amidst Pending Civil Title Disputes Section 8 Arbitration Act | Executing Court Must Refer Parties To Arbitration If Dispute Falls Within Scope Of Compromise Decree: Madhya Pradesh High Court Suit For Damages Arising Out Of Tortious Injury Barred By Limitation If Not Filed Within One Year: Punjab & Haryana High Court 72-Hour Gap Not Proximate: Calcutta High Court Quashes Murder Conviction, Holds 'Last Seen' Theory Inapplicable When Time Gap Is Wide Original Owner Cannot Create Trust Over Property Already Sold; Separate Relief For Title Declaration Not Required: Madras High Court

Recovery Suit Decree Upheld: Defendant's Claim of Improper Summons Service Rejected: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment delivered by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN on October 31, 2023, the Delhi High Court upheld the decision of the Trial Court in a civil dispute case. The case involved a suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in which the plaintiff sought recovery of ₹16 lakhs with interest from the defendant.

The key issue in the case revolved around the service of summons to the defendant. The defendant had contended that the summons were not duly served and, therefore, challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. The defendant claimed to have been residing separately from his family at a different address since 2005, asserting that he was not present at the address where the summons were delivered.

However, the plaintiff presented compelling evidence to counter the defendant's claim. The evidence included documents such as a registration certificate, a compromise deed, a criminal complaint, and a report from a bailiff, all of which mentioned the defendant's address as the same location where the summons had been served. This evidence went unrefuted by the defendant.

In the judgment, the Court found that the defendant's claim had not been established on a balance of probabilities. The Court also noted that even in the defendant's submissions during the appeal, he continued to mention the same address. As a result, the Court upheld the Trial Court's decision, ruling that the summons had been duly served, and the defendant's challenge to the judgment and decree was rejected.

Furthermore, the Court ordered the defendant to pay costs of ₹30,000 to the plaintiff within four weeks from the date of the judgment. In case the costs were not paid within the specified time frame, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover the amount in the proceedings for execution of the impugned decree.

This judgment reinforces the importance of proper summons service in legal proceedings and highlights the significance of substantial and consistent evidence in establishing claims before the court.

Date of Decision: October 31, 2023

ANIL KUMAR KAUSHIK  VS RAJNISH 

Latest Legal News