Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HARI SHANKAR versus STATE

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


HARI SHANKAR v STATE - CMA Case No. 1114 of 2002 [2007] RD-RJ 3946 (14 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

ORDER ::

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1114/2002

Hari Shanker

Versus

The State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Date of order :: August 14, 2007

PRESENT

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

Mr. Nitin Jain for the appellant

Mrs. Sadhna Bhatt, Addl. G.A. for the State

BY THE COURT: 1. Heard learned counsels. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.05.2002 passed by the learned ADJ, Jhalawar, whereby the learned ADJ has remanded the case back to the learned trial court on the ground that there was no proper service of summons on the State and its authorities, namely the Executive Engineer, PWD, Jhalawar and the

Assistant Engineer, PWD, Jhalawar and thus, there was no compliance with the provisions of Section 80(2) of the CPC as the application for waiver of that notice was not decided. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the

Calcutta High Court in the case of Smt. Janak Raji Devi Vs.

Chandrabati Devi & Anr. Reported in AIR 2002 Calcutta 11 and submitted that no formal order as to waiver of notice under Section 80 is required once the suit is registered and it should be deemed that leave has been granted for maintaining the suit. Learned counsel further submits that the appeal filed by the State itself was barred by time as the same was filed on 15.10.1998 against the trial court's order and decree 03.04.1998. 3. Learned Addl. G.A. Submits that a perusal of the appellate order dated 14.05.2002 discloses that the summons in question were issued on 28.01.1998 for 29.01.1998 at about 3.00 p.m. and thus, there was no proper service of the notice on the defendants. Order 5 Rule 17 CPC requires that if the notices are refused, they should be served by a fixture on the address given. No such procedure was adopted in the present case. 4. I have heard the learned counsels. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that there was no proper service of the summons on the defendants on dates given above it appears and even the proceedings for contempt for refusal of notice were initiated by the trial court against the State authorities. There was no proper order passed by the learned trial court waiving the service of the notices as required under Section 80 CPC. 5. In these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the appellate court remanding the case back for trial by the trial court cannot be faulted. The delay in filing the appeal should be deemed to have been condoned by the appellate court below. I find no force in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed.

(Dr.VINEET KOTHARI),J.

Pramod

Item No. 35


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.