Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Vi Additional District Judge vs 7 And 10 Restraining Them From ... on 30 August, 2023
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
it was allowed. Ultimately, on 15.02.2023
Court ordered notices to the respondents.
made 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
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
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
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
