Muneer Ahmed Sheriff and ors. Vs. Javeeria Nusrath - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
karnataka civil rules of practice, 1967 - rule 224 - service of summons - order sheet disclosing that defendants refused the summons - trial court issuing emergent process by a special bailiff-defendants residing within the jurisdiction of the court concerned - whether service of summons by special process / bailiff proper when parties residing within the jurisdiction of the issuing court. held - the civil court can direct service by a special process server on a party who resides outside its jurisdiction, through the court in whose jurisdiction the party resides. when the party is residing within the jurisdiction of the issuing court, the law does not provide service of summons by special process. order of service by a special process is illegal and not warranted in law. appeal is allowed. ;it is said, that the trial courts are often resorting to special process to a party who resides within its jurisdiction. the said practice is illegal and may give rise to suspicion and doubt about the integrity of the proceedings. the trial courts need to have thorough and proper knowledge of law, while issuing summons by a special process. ;appeal allowed. - indian contract act (9 of 1872) section 20: [arali nagaraj, j] void agreement - defendant, under belief that virtue of allotment order itself he had authority to sell away property, which he got allotted from development authority-allotment order showed by defendant to plaintiff and the latter believed that defendant had authority to sell away said property in her favour and under that belief she agreed to purchase same-both plaintiff and defendant proceeded with transaction under amistake as to fact that defendant had authority under said allotment order to sell property and, therefore, they entered into said agreement of sale-said mistake of fact was mutual between both parties besides being essential for said agreement by virtue of provisions of section 20 said agreement of sale became void and unenforceable in law.k. sreedhar rao, j.1. this appeal against the judgment and decree in o.s.no. 683/ 2003. the defendants are the appellants. respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the a and b schedule properties by the plaintiffs. b schedule property forms portion of the a schedule property. the impugned judgment discloses that defendants no. 1 to 3 are placed expert and the suit is decreed expert.2. the order sheet discloses that defendants no. 1 to 3 have refused the summons. the trial court issued emergent process to defendants no. 1 to 3 by a special bailiff.3. the defendants strenuously contend that at no point of time they refused service of summons.4. the provisions of rule 224 of the karnataka civil service practice 1967 reads thus:the presiding officer can direct a special process server for service to be made a outlying court that means if the service of summons notice to be made on a person living within the jurisdiction of a different court and not within the jurisdiction of the court concerned the special process server can be deputed for delivery of the summons to the outlying court. thereafter that court shall issue process in accordance with law.5. within the jurisdiction of the court if summons are to be served the provisions of section 224 cannot be invoked.6. the civil court can direct service by a special process server on a party who resides outside its jurisdiction, through the court in whose jurisdiction the party resides. when the party is residing within the jurisdiction of the issuing court, the law does not provide service of summons by special process.7. it is said that the trial courts are often resorting to special process to a party who resides within its jurisdiction. the said practice is illegal and may give rise to suspicion and doubt about the integrity of the proceedings. the trial courts need to have thorough and proper knowledge of law, while issuing summons by a special process.8. in the present case, without going into the fact whether there was refusal on the part of the defendants, 1 find that the order of service by a special process is illegal and not warranted in law. for that reason, i find there is no valid service on the defendants. accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the matter is remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. refund the court fee.9. the question of possession of the b schedule property is in serious controversy. it is therefore directed that the parties shall maintain status quo of the b schedule property and can apply to the trial court for passing appropriate interim orders and till such interim orders are passed, the parties shall maintain status quo of the b schedule property.10. the parties are directed to appear before the court on 30.7.2004.operative portion of the order to be delivered to the counsel for the appellant and respondents for production before the trial court.the registry is directed to communicate the copy of the judgment to all the presiding officers for proper compliance of law.