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    |     Paternity Established Through SSC and Appointment Order, Legal Obligation to Maintain Unmarried Daughter: Andhra Pradesh High Court    |     No Appeal Shall Be Heard Without Disputed Tax Deposit: Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 96(b) of the Cantonment Act, 2006    |     Parties Must Choose Peace Over Litigation: Calcutta High Court Denies FIR Quashing in Family Dispute, Highlights Mediation Option    |     Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Recruitment of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians In Punjab Due to Procedural Flaws    |     Res Judicata Bars Reconsideration of Adoption Validity in Second Round of Litigation: Jammu & Kashmir High Court    |     Candidates who use a party’s symbol must be deemed members of that party: Kerala High Court Upholds Disqualification for Defection    |     Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Accounts and Lack of Forensic Certainty Lead to Acquittal: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case    |     Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices Under Section 148 Due to Invalid Sanction by JCIT    |     Summons Under PMLA for Further Investigation Does Not Infringe Right Against Self-Incrimination: Telangana HC    |     Termination During Probation Is Lawful if Concealment of Criminal Case Is Proven: Allahabad HC    |     Disproportionate Fine Cannot Be Imposed for Recovery of 1 Liter of Country-made Liquor: Patna High Court    |     Prosecution failed to prove identity of remains and establish murder beyond reasonable doubt: Orissa High Court Acquit Ex-Husband    |     Despite 12 Injuries on the Victim, No Intention to Kill Found: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 304 Part-II IPC    |    

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 

Similar News