CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2007) 06 AP CK 0070

Hari Gopal Lunani vs Sri Venkateswara Sugar Mills

Andhra Pradesh High Court · Decided on 25 June 2007 · Citation: (2007) 6 ALD 29 : (2007) 5 ALT 2

HON’BLE JUDGES
Goda Raghuram, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Revision Petition No. 2259 of 2007

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 350 words

Goda Raghuram, J.—The revision is directed against the order of arrest, dated 30-04-2007 passed by the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru in E.P. No. 31 of 2007 in O.S. No. 103 of 1982.

2.

The Revision petitioner is the judgment debtor in the suit. As he failed to satisfy the decree, the respondent-decree holder filed the execution petition. By the impugned order, dated 30-04-2007, the Court below recorded hat the sale notice was returned with an endorsement that service of summons was effected by affixture on the door, that the revision petitioner was absent though service of process was made and that in the circumstances, arrest warrant be issued against the revision petitioner. The E.P., was posted for enquiry on 27-07-2007.

3.

The principal ground of attack on this order by the revision petitioner is that there was no service by affixture in accordance with the procedural discipline warranted under Order V Rules 15 and 19 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), no affidavit certifying affixture on the revision petitioner''s door was filed by the process server concerned and in the context of such an affidavit not having been made by the process server, no examination on oath of the serving officer was recorded by the Court concerned as is required by Order V Rule 19 of CPC.

4.

Sri C.C.S. Sastry, the learned Counsel for the respondent-decree holder, concedes that there has been a violation of mandatory provisions of Order V Rule 19 of CPC and that no service of summons could be stated to have been effected justifying issuance of a warrant of arrest against the revision petitioner.

5.

In the light of the aforementioned concession by the learned Counsel for the respondent, the revision petition requires to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The order, dated 30-04-2007, passed by the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru in E.P. No. 31 of 2007 in O.S. No. 103 of 1982 is quashed. The amount deposited by the revision petitioner pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, dated 23-05-2007, shall be refunded. No costs.