Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2226 (RAJ)

Daula Ram v. Phusa Ram

2005-08-23

KAMAL NAYAN SHRIMAL, R.B.PARMAR

body2005
Jheky] lnL;&;g f}rh; vihy jktLFkku dkrdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1955 ¼ftls rRipkr~ ^^vf/kfu;e 1955** dgk tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 224 ds vUrxZr jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh] guqekux< ds fu.kZ; o fMØh fnukad 3-12-99 ds fo:) izLrqr dh xbZ gSaA 2- izdj.k ds rF; la{ksi esa bl izdkj gS fd xzke jkorlj ds lkfcd [kljk ua- 649 esa 29 ch?kk Hkwfe ds laca/k esa ?kks"k.kk dk okn la- 446@91 oknh Qwlkjke us izfroknh nkSykjke o vU; ds fo:) mi[k.M vf/kdkjh ¼jktLo½] uksgj ds U;k;ky; esa fnukad 10-12-91 dks izLrqr fd;kA fnukad 11-12-91 dks izdj.k ntZ jftLVj dj izfroknhx.k dks tfj;s lEeu ryc fd;k x;kA rkehy ds ckotwn izfroknhx.k ds mifLFkr u gksus ds dkj.k mi[k.M vf/kdkjh ¼jktLo½ uksgj us muds fu.kZ; fnukad 3-8-92 }kjk oknh dk okn fMØh dj fn;kA mDr fu.kZ; o fMØh ls vlarq"V gksdj izfroknh nkSykjke us vihy la- 380@94 jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh] guqekux<+ ds le{k izLrqr dhA vihy ds lkFk izfroknh us ifjlhek vf/kfu;e] 1963 dh /kkjk 5 dk izkFkZuk i= Hkh isk fd;kA i{kdkjksa dks lquus ds ipkr~ jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh] guqekux<+ us muds fu.kZ; fnukad 18-1-96 }kjk vihy dks fe;kn ckgj ekurs gq, fujLr dj fn;kA mDr fu.kZ; ls O;fFkr gksdj izfroknh nkSykjke us fuxjkuh@Vh,@82@96 jktLo e.My jktLFkku] vtesj esa izLrqr dh] ftls jktLo e.My dh ,dyihB us vius vknsk fnukad 28-10-98 }kjk vkafkd :i ls Lohdkj djrs gq, i=koyh jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh] guqekux<+ dks bl funsZk ds lkFk izsf"kr dh fd jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh i{kdkjksa dks nqckjk xq.kkxq.k ij ,oa ifjlhek vf/kfu;e] 1963 dh /kkjk 5 ds vUrxZr izLrqr izkFkZuk i= ij lqudj QSlyk djsaA jkTkLo vihy izkf/kdkjh us jktLo e.My ds funsZkksa ds vuq:i vihy dks iqu% ntZ dj i{kdkjksa dks vihy ds xq.kkxq.k o ifjlhek ds izu ij lqudj muds fu.kZ; fnukad 30-12-99 }kjk vihy vLohdkj dj nhA mDr fu.kZ; ds fo:) izfroknh nkSykjke us fuxjkuh la- Vh,@274@99 jktLo e.My jktLFkku] vtesj esa isk dhA fnukad 20-8-2002 dks vizkFkhZx.k us izkFkZuk i= isk dj fuxjkuh iks"k.kh; ugha gksus ds dkj.k fujLr djus dk fuosnu fd;kA i{kdkjksa dks lquus ds ipkr~ jktLo e.My dh ,dyihB us muds vknsk fnukad 5-10-2002 }kjk fuxjkuh dks f}rh; vihy ds :i esa ifjofrZr djus ds vknsk fn;sA vknsk fnukad 5-10-2002 dh ikyuk esa dk;kZy; us fuxjkuh dks f}rh; vihy es ntZ jftLVj fd;kA 3- mHk; i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k dks lquk x;kA 4- fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dk dFku gS fd vihykFkhZ us jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh] guqekux<+ ds le{k mi[k.M vf/kdkjh ¼jktLo½ uksgj }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 3-8-92 ds fo:) vihy tkudkjh dh fnukad ls vUnj fe;kn izLrqr dh FkhA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us bl fcUnq ij fd rkehy dks oS/krk dks dsoy vknsk 9 fu;e 13 lhihlh esa gh pqukSrh nh tk ldrh gS] vihy ds ek/;e ls ugha] fu.kZ; fnukad 3-12-99 ikfjr djrs le; izFke n`"V;k =qfV dh gSA vius mijksDr dFku ds leFkZu esa mUgksaus vkjvkjMh 2004 i`"B 9] vkjvkjVh 2004 i`"B 1] ,vkbZvkj 2005 ,llh 626 U;kf;d n`"VkUrksa dk lgkjk fy;kA mudk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd izdj.k ds lacaf/kr lEiw.kZ jsdkMZ miyC/k gS] vr% vihy dk fuLrkj.k jktLo e.My }kjk gh dj fn;k tk;sA 5- fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZx.k dk dFku gS fd v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us vihy dks fe;kn o xq.kkxq.k nksuksa vk/kkjksa ij fujLr fd;k] bl dkj.k vihykFkhZ dh vihy esa dksbZ lkj ugha gS fodYi esa mUgksaus dgk fd izdj.k dks fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks izfrizsf"kr djus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gS] D;ksafd v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us fe;kn ds fcUnq ij vihykFkhZx.k dh vihy fujLr dh gSA ;fn U;k;ky; fe;kn ds fcUnq ij iqu% lquokbZ ds fy;s izdj.k dks izfrizsf"kr djrh gS rks v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks izfrizsf"kr fd;k tk;sA 6- geus mHk; i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ds rdksZ ij euu fd;k ,oa muds }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar dk v/;;u fd;k rFkk v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa dh i=kofy;ksa dk voyksdu fd;kA 7- izuxr izdj.k esa okn fnukad 11-12-91 dks ntZ jftLVj fd;k x;k vkSj vkt fnukad rd bl ckr ij fufpr :i ls dksbZ er vfHkO;Dr ugha fd;k x;k gS fd vihykFkhZ ij tks lEeu dh rkehy gqbZ] og fof/kor :i ls gqbZ vFkok ughaA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us vouh dqekj ds- iVsy fo:) misUnz ,vkbZvkj 1999 ,llh 1125 esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd%& ``When the material was available before the High Court, it should have itself decided the appeal one way or other. It could have considered the various aspects of the case mentioned in the order of the Trial Court and considered whether the order of the Trial Court ought to be confirmed or reversed or modified. 8- lEeu dh rkehy lgh gqbZ ;k ugha] ;g f}rh; vihy esa Hkh ns[kk tk ldrk gSA eSa bl laca/k esa vkksd uxj osyQs;j ,lksfl;sku ,.M vuknj cuke vkj-ds- kekZ ,.M vnlZ 2002 Mh,uts ¼,llh½ ist la- 69 o lqkhy dqekj cuke xqjizhr flag ,.M vnlZ ,vkbZvkj 2002 ,llh 2370esa mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk fn;s x;s fu.kZ;ksa ls leFkZu ikrk gwaA 9- ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us Jherh dyl ckuw cuke eSa- xkSre ,lcslVksl lhesaV izksMsDV o vuknj 1974 MCyw,y,u ¼;wlh½ ist 408 esa vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd%& ``Civil Procedure Code-O. 5 r. 18-Service of summons-Date and time of Service of summon not mentioned by the serving officer-Held, no presumption can be raised about the date of delivery of service. The language of R. 18 of O. 5 C.P.C. enjoins a duty on the serving officer to clearly mention the time when the service was effected, the manner in which the summons were served & names & addresses of the persons if any who identified the person served & witnessed the delivery of tender of the summons. This provisions has been enacted by the legislature with a view to ensure that service has been properly effected and that it was done in accordance with the provision of the law. The expression `time includes within its import the date also. The lacuna left by Motilal by not mentioning the time, and date of service, the names and addresses of Amarchand and Chandmal in his report makes the fact doubtful that the summons was actually delivered to Smt. Kalsum Banoo in the presence of Amarchand and Chandmal whose names do find place on the corner of the back of the summons. Under the alleged signatures of Amarchand and Chandmal 2 & 2 & 74 is no doubt written but from that writing no presumption can be raised about the date of the delivery unless the fact was incorporated by the report of the serving officer. Under the alleged signatures of Amarchand and Chandmal 2 & 2 & 74 is no doubt written but from that writing no presumption can be raised about the date of the delivery unless the fact was incorporated by the report of the serving officer. 10- mijksDr ds ifjizs{; esa geus fopkj.k U;k;ky; dh i=koyh ij vihykFkhZ ij lEeu rkehy gksus okys rFkkdfFkr lEeu dks ns[kkA izdj.k izR;FkhZ la- 1 }kjk fnukad 10-12-91 dks fopkj.k U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;k x;k vkSj fnukad 1-12-91 dks fopkj.k U;k;ky; us izdj.k ntZ jftLVj dj izfroknhx.k dks lEeu Hksts ,oa izdj.k esa vkxkeh rkjh[k 8-1-92 nh xbZA vihykFkhZ o izR;FkhZ la- 2 o 3 ds fo:) ,drjQk dk;Zokgh fnukad 8-1-92 dks vey esa ykbZ xbZA geus vihykFkhZ ij rkehy gksus okys rFkkdfFkr lEeu dks ns[kkA lEeu ds ihNs vaxwBk fukkuh gSA ijUrq ml ij fdlus mls igpkuk] fdl le; ml ij rkehy dh xbZA vFkkZr vknsk 5 fu;e 18 lhihlh dh ikyuk dk ys[kek= Hkh mYys[k ugha gSA jktLo e.My dh ,dyihB us ukjk;.k cuke gchc [kka o vU; vkjvkjMh 1975 ist 413 esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd%& ``(b) Civil P.C., O.5., R.18-Raj. Land Revenue Act, Sec. 59-Revenue Courts Manual (pt.II), R. 178-Scope-Ex-parte order, set aside by R.A.A. holding that there was sufficient groundsince process server not obtained attestation on summons-Propriety-Certain duty is cast on serving officer u/o 5, R. 18-When deft. is an illiterate person, it is very necessary for process server to have same witness to delivery or tender of summons-According to R. 178 process server as far as possible should prepare his report on spot and attestration of service should be obtained where-ever possible from two respectable residents of locality-Where summons, returned only with remark that summons, served and thumb impression there-on, disowned by party-Hence reasonable doubt existed whether service, effected and requirements of rules, not met-Order of RAA, not interfered with in revision. mijksDr ds ifjizs{; esa ge bl fufpr er ds gS fd vihykFkhZ ij lEeu dh rkehy lE;d~ :i ls ugha gqbZ rFkk v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds le{k mlds mifLFkr gksus ds i;kZIr dkj.k FksA vr% vihykFkhZ ds fo:) tks ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh fnukad 8-1-92 dks dh xbZ] mls fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA 11- vtht vgen [kka cuke vkbZ-,- iVsy ,vkbZvkj 1974 vka/kz iznsk 1 dh o`g)&ihB us ,d i{kh; dk;Zokgh dks vikLr dus dk izHkko fuEu kCnksa esa crk;k gS fd%& ``it follows that where an ex parte decree is set aside, all the proceedings which took place subsequent to the stage of the non-appearance of the defendant leading to the decree are set aside and they are not binding on the defendant. 12- ifj.kkeLo:i vihykFkhZ ds fo:) ikfjr ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh fnukad 8-1-92 fujLr dh tkrh gSA izdj.k fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks bl funsZk ds lkFk izfrizsf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd os okn dks iqu% uEcj ij ysdj vkxkeh dk;Zokgh djsaA 13- i{kdkjksa dks funsZfkr fd;k tkrk gS fd os mi[k.M vf/kdkjh ¼jktLo½ uksgj ¼guqekux<½ ds le{k fnukad 30-9-2005 dks mifLFkr gksA 14- fu.kZ; [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA