SUSHIL KUMAR SABHARWAL versus GURPREET SINGH AND ORS.

SUSHIL KUMAR SABHARWAL versus GURPREET SINGH AND ORS.

The failure to serve summons in accordance with Order 5 Rules 17 and 18 CPC constituted non-service, not mere irregularity. Absence of opportunity for the tenant to contest due to improper service required ex-parte decree to be set aside.

Parties
Appellant: Sushil Kumar Sabharwal; Respondent: Gurpreet Singh and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order in Civil Revision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; ex-parte decree set aside.
Legal Topics
Ex Parte Decree, Setting Aside Ex Parte Decree, Service of Summons, Eviction, Arrears of Rent
Civil Procedure Landlord Tenant Ex Parte Decree Setting Aside Ex Parte Decree Service of Summons Eviction Arrears of Rent

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sushil Kumar Sabharwal

Appellant

Gurpreet Singh and Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order in Civil Revision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant-tenant was properly served with summons in manner contemplated by the Code of Civil Procedure
  2. 2 Whether ex-parte decree should be set aside for non-service of summons

Ratio Decidendi

The failure to serve summons in accordance with Order 5 Rules 17 and 18 CPC constituted non-service, not mere irregularity. Absence of opportunity for the tenant to contest due to improper service required ex-parte decree to be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; ex-parte decree set aside.

Orders

  • Orders of Trial Court and High Court set aside.
  • Application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC allowed.