HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.S.No.20 of 2023
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. DATE ORDER OFFICE
No. NOTE
7) 30.08.2023 AVRB, J
This appeal is filed by the first
Defendant in O.S.No.15 of 2014, on the file of
VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool,
challenging the judgment, dated 21.03.2020
where the learned VI Additional District
Judge, Kurnool, decreed the suit of the
plaintiffs against the defendant Nos.1, 3 to 5,
7 and 10 restraining them from interfering
with the possession and enjoyment of the
plaintiffs over the plaint schedule properties
and that the suit against Defendant Nos.2, 6,
8 and 9 is abated as they died. Challenging
the same, the first Defendant filed the present
appeal.
There are as many as respondent Nos.1
to 10. First respondent is no other than the first plaintiff. Respondent Nos.2 to 10 are the plaintiff Nos.2 to 10. The other defendants are not parties to the appeal.
After appeal was filed, it was returned with certain objections and later it was represented with delay of 173 days and an application was filed to condone the delay and 2 it was allowed. Ultimately, on 15.02.2023 Court ordered notices to the respondents.
While so, the respondent Nos.1 and 3made appearance through their counsels. The notice against second respondent was returned as died. Notice to fifth respondent was returned as refused. Notices to Respondent Nos.4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are returned as insufficient addresses or left, as the case may be.
While so, the learned counsel for the appellant on 10.05.2023 represented that insofar as the second respondent is concerned, he is only office bearer of the first respondent, as such, there is no need to take any steps against second respondent. He further represented that the Court can take notice against fifth respondent as deemed service. He further represented that the Court can make necessary application of Order VI Rule 14(A) of C.P.C. in respect of Respondent Nos.4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. He would submit that as the addresses furnished by Respondent Nos.4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are the registered addresses even with the aid of Order VI Rule 14(A) of C.P.C., the services can be taken as sufficient.
It is prerogative of the appellant insofar as second respondent is concerned, to decide 3 as to whether any legal representatives are to be brought on record and according to the learned counsel for the appellant, as second respondent was only office bearer of the first respondent, there is no need to take any steps. Insofar as the fifth respondent is concerned, his contention is that as fifth respondent refused to take notice, it can be taken as sufficient service. Insofar as the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant as regards respondent Nos.2 and 5 is concerned, there is force in his contention. But, insofar as the Respondent Nos.4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 is concerned, this Court would like to make it clear that it is a fact that the notices are not served to them in accordance with their addresses shown in the plaint.
As seen from Order VI Rule 14(A) of C.P.C., the duty is cast upon the party to furnish the registered addresses. It is no doubt true that the addresses furnished by the above respondents in the capacity of the plaintiffs before the trial Court is nothing but registered addresses, but the fact remained is that according to Order VI Rule 14(A) (3) CPC, addresses so furnished until it is changed duly deemed to be the addresses of the party for the purpose of service of all processes in the suit or in the appeal from any decree shall hold goods for a period of 4 two years after the final determination of the cause or matter. Therefore, the said registered addresses can be taken only for a period of two years after final determination of the cause or matter.
Coming to the subject matter, the impugned judgment is dated 21.03.2020. By the time, the Court ordered notices to the respondents on 15.02.2023, about 2 years and 11 months time was expired. Hence, as the impugned judgment was dated 21.03.2020 absolutely, the registered address furnished by the plaintiffs was only valid up to two years. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant to take aid of Order VI Rule 14(A) of C.P.C. to say that the services against the above said respondents is sufficient cannot accepted by any stretch of imagination. It is the appellant who is responsible for the delay in numbering the appeal.
Having regard to the above, this Court is of the view that the service of notice against fifth respondent is sufficient, as he refused to receive the notice. As the information reached to the Court as regards the death of the second respondent basing on postal cover only, appellant is directed to verify about the death of the second respondent and to file a memo in the Registry 5 stating that no steps are required against second respondent. Insofar as the Respondent Nos.4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are concerned, the appellant is directed to take fresh notices to the above said respondents on filing correct addresses by the appellant only.
Registry shall not send fresh notices to the above said respondents unless the appellant files the correct addresses.
It is also open to the learned counsel for the appellant to take personal notices to the Respondent Nos.4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 and to file proof in the Registry with acknowledgement due.
List the matter after eight (08) weeks.
________ AVRB,J PGR