Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Shashikant s/o Eknath Choudhari, filed a first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in a civil suit for recovery of arrears of electricity charges. The respondent No.1, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (formerly Maharashtra State Electricity Board), had filed the suit against the respondent No.2 company and its directors for recovery of Rs.24,46,740.96 paise towards arrears of charges for supply of energy, minimum charges for unexpired period of agreement, etc. During the suit, the respondent No.3/defendant No.2 filed an application stating that the directors of the respondent No.2 company were necessary parties, and accordingly, the appellant was impleaded as defendant No.4. The appellant contended that he was never served with the summons of the civil suit and had no knowledge of the proceedings until he came to know about it in the execution proceedings. The trial court proceeded ex-parte against the appellant and passed a decree for the claimed amount with interest at 18% per annum. The appellant argued that the decree was passed without giving him an opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the appellant was not served with summons and had no opportunity to defend. The court held that the decree cannot be sustained and set it aside. The suit was remanded to the trial court for fresh decision after giving the appellant an opportunity to file a written statement and lead evidence. The court directed the parties to appear before the trial court on 23rd February 2015 and requested the trial court to decide the suit expeditiously, preferably within one year from the date of the order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Service of Summons - Ex-parte Decree - Setting Aside - The appellant, a judgment-debtor, was not served with summons of the civil suit and had no knowledge of the proceedings until execution. The trial court passed a decree for Rs.24,46,740.96 with interest at 18% per annum. The High Court held that the decree cannot be sustained as the appellant was denied an opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The decree was set aside and the suit was remanded for fresh decision after giving the appellant an opportunity to file a written statement and lead evidence. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment-debtor who was not served with summons of the civil suit and had no knowledge of the proceedings is entitled to have the ex-parte decree set aside.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree are set aside. The suit is remanded to the trial court for fresh decision after giving the appellant an opportunity to file a written statement and lead evidence. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 23rd February 2015. The trial court is requested to decide the suit expeditiously, preferably within one year from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Service of summons
- principles of natural justice
- setting aside ex-parte decree
- opportunity of hearing
