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

172
0
Share:
fir bail transport pay Public T20 World Cup v Pay Video School company Human Rape Sexual Taxable Evidence Tax Statement property students Policy Bail Bail cheques Police Accident Service Claim Trademark Cognizance smuggling NI Eviction Agreement Minister Acid spa Old Delhi HC MBBS DivorceLand Child Evidence Bail Senior Marriage Maintenance Application Property Exam Evidence Divorce doctrine pocso award Medical public Income Tax constable National bailUniversity Property Recovery Evidence Adopted v Payment territorial corporation Bail liability police bank Constitutionality child nature claim domestic Limitation bsnl traffic property railway legal landlords Relationship Citizen property Tax custody phonetic predicate Acquisition forum public asset tax wire eligibility violence physical financial second trademark person Corpus Director TDS policy entertainment parody games recovery 14 tax judiciary claims court bar 34 Raps advertisement employees salary mother rape decisions students 138 divorce bail CBI fir evidence evidence eviction drc lower doctors legal investigation civil copyright

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 

Download Judgment

                                                                     

Share: