Jharkhand High Court
Raj Narayan Mishra vs Basudeo Yadav on 15 July, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
2025:JHHC:19172
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 294 of 2025
1. Raj Narayan Mishra, aged about 64 years, son of Late Parshu Ram
Mishra, resident of Village Akdoni Kala, P.O. Beniadih, P.S. Giridih,
District- Giridih (Jharkhand)
2. Barmeshwar Mishra, aged about 58 years, son of Parshuram Mishra,
resident of 81A, Agdonikla, Near Officers Club, VIII, P.O. Beniadih, P.S.
Giridih, District- Giridih (Jharkhand) ... Petitioners
-Versus-
Basudeo Yadav, son of Late Bharat Mahto @ Fuchi Mahto, resident of
Village Barahmasiya, P.O. Barahmasiya, P.S. Giridih (T), District- Giridih
... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
Mr. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate
-----
06/15.07.2025 Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani along with Mr. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the
sole opposite party.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India for setting-aside the order dated 25.11.2024 passed by the learned
Munsif, Giridih in Original Suit No.130 of 2018, contained in Annexure-4,
whereby, the learned Court has been pleased to dismiss the petition dated
09.01.2024 filed by the petitioners for recalling the ex-parte order dated
23.08.2019 and refused to accept the written statement filed by the
petitioners/defendants.
3. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
opposite party/plaintiff instituted Original Suit No.130 of 2018 against the
defendants/petitioners praying therein a decree for specific performance of
the contract between the plaintiff and defendants dated 25.03.2003 passed
in favour of the plaintiff and further prayer was made for direction to the
2025:JHHC:19172
defendants to execute the sale-deed after receiving Rs.2,000/- remaining
amount of consideration and execute the sale-deed within period fixed by the
learned Court. He further submits that the said original suit has been admitted
and the notice has not been served upon the defendants/petitioners and vide
order dated 23.08.2019, ex-parte order has been passed against the
defendants. He submits that thereafter the defendants/petitioners filed a
petition dated 09.01.2024 for recalling the ex-parte order, which has been
refused by the learned Court. He submits that in view of that, the learned
Court has wrongly not recalled the order. He submits that only paper
publication was made and, thereafter, the notice has been said to be validly
served. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned order may kindly
be set-aside.
4. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the sole opposite party
opposed the prayer and submits that the notice has been issued and the
service report was also attached with the record, which has been looked into
by the learned Court and even paper publication was directed to be made
and in that view of the matter, the learned Court has been pleased to reject
the petition filed by the defendants/ petitioners. He submits that in view of
that, there is no illegality in the impugned order. He further submits that the
legislature puts the limit of 90 days in filing the written statement, however,
the said petition has been filed by the petitioners after long delay and in view
of that, the learned Court has rightly passed the said order. He relied upon
the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parimal
v. Veena @ Bharti, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 545. On these grounds, he
submits that this petition may kindly be dismissed.
2025:JHHC:19172
5. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court has gone through the materials on record including the impugned
order. From the impugned order, it transpires that service report has been
received before the learned Court and it was attached with the record and
thereafter paper publication was also made on 10.05.2019 for appearance of
the defendants, however, they have not appeared and in view of that, the
impugned order has been passed by the learned Court.
6. In the case of Basant Singh and another v. Roman Catholic
Mission, reported in (2002) 7 SCC 531, the question for consideration
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether service of notice sent by
registered post with acknowledgment card in terms of second proviso to
Order V Rule 19-A of CPC read with Section 27 of General Clauses Act, could
be held as sufficient notice. The facts involved therein were suit filed by
landlord was decreed ex-parte on 30.05.1986. Prior to same, on 02.04.1986,
Trial Court ordered summons by ordinary process and registered post. The
notice has been served, which has been attached with the record. Apart from
same, the Trial Court ordered substituted service through paper publication
in local daily and, thereafter, the learned Court proceed ex-parte against the
defendants and, thereafter, a petition was filed by the defendants/petitioners
for recalling the ex-parte order, which has been rejected by the learned Court.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that second proviso to Order
IX Rule 13 of the CPC casts an embargo on the court that a decree passed
ex-parte shall not be set-aside merely on the ground that there has been an
irregularity in the service of summons. Order V, proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule
19-A CPC provides that where the summons are properly addressed, prepaid
2025:JHHC:19172
and duly sent by registered post with acknowledgement due, notwithstanding
the fact that the acknowledgement having been lost or mislaid, or for any
other reason, has not been received by the court within thirty days from the
date of the issue of the summons, the Court shall presume that notice is duly
served. Further, Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides similar
provision. The presumptions are rebuttable. It is always open to the
defendants to rebut the presumption by leading convincing and cogent
evidence.
8. Second proviso to Order IX Rule 13 of CPC provides that decree cannot
be set-aside merely on ground that there is an irregularity in service of
summons. The question however would be whether failure to exhaust other
modes of service of summons before considering application for substituted
service would be such an irregularity or would be a sufficient cause to set
aside ex-parte decree, however in the case in hand, the suit is still pending
and that stage has not come.
9. It is settled law that no person can be condemned unheard. The
principle of audi-alterem-partem has been enshrined as fundamental right in
our legal system. Elaborate procedure provided in Order V for service of
summons would not require to be highlighted to realize emphasis placed on
ensuring opportunity of participation in litigation.
40. As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parimal's case (supra)
expression 'sufficient cause' contained in Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, should be
interpreted liberally and not in narrow and pedantic manner. Only caution
added was that unless case fell within four corners of Order IX Rule 13 of
CPC, Court had no jurisdiction to set-aside ex-parte decree.
2025:JHHC:19172
10. In view of the above facts and considering that the suit is still pending
for evidence and Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC is not mandatory, but it is directory,
as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Salem
Advocate Bar Association, T.N. v. Union of India, reported in (2005) 6
SCC 344 and in several other cases as well as by the High Courts and further
considering that for deciding the suit on contest, the impugned order dated
25.11.2024 passed by the learned Munsif, Giridih in Original Suit No.130 of
2018 is, hereby, set-aside, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to be
paid to the plaintiff/opposite party by the defendants/petitioners before the
learned Trial Court.
11. The written statement filed by the petitioners herein shall be accepted
by the learned Court and the learned Court will proceed in the matter, in
accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. The parties will not
take unnecessary adjournment without any cogent reason.
12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed in above terms and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/ Simran A.F.R.
