YELLAPPA Vs. YASHODABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH utter dismay I find that the pleadings filed by the parties at the time of filing of the suit and in the subsequent stages like appeal and revisions, there is no faithful and scrupulous observance of the provision of Order 6 Rule 14-A.

(2.) FOR convenient reference, the provisions are extracted hereunder: 14-A Address for service of notice - (1) Every pleading, when filed by a party, shall be accompanied by a statement in the prescribed form, signed as provided in Rule 14, regarding the address of the party. (2) Such address may, from time to time be changed by lodging in Court form duly filled up and stating the new address of the party and accompanied by a verified petition. (3) The address furnished in the statement made under sub-rule 91 shall be called the "registered address" of the party, and shall, until duly changed as aforesaid, be deemed to be the address of the party for the purpose of service of all processes in the suit or in any appeal from any decree or order therein made and for the purpose of execution, and shall hold good, subject as aforesaid, for a period of two years after the final determination of the cause or matter. (4) Service of any process may be effected upon a party at his registered address in all respects as though such party resided thereat. (5) Where the registered address of a party is discovered by the Court to be incomplete, false or fictitious, the Court may, either on its own motion, or on the application of any party, order:- (a) in the case where such registered address was furnished by a plaintiff, stay of the suit, or (b) in the case where such registered address was furnished by a defendant, his defence struck out and he be placed in the same position as if he had not put up any defence. (6) Where a suit is stayed or a defence is struck out under sub-rule (5) the plaintiff or, as the case may be, the defendant may, after furnishing his true address, apply to the Court for an order to set aside the order of stay or, as the case may be, the order striking out the defence. (7) The Court, if satisfied that the party was prevented by any sufficient cause from filing the true address at the proper time, shall set aside the order of stay or order striking out the defence, on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit or defence, as the case may be. (8) Nothing in this rule shall prevent the Court from directing the service of a process at any other address, if, for any reason, it thinks fit to do so.

(3.) IT is unfortunate to note that when the suit is filed, it has become the tendency of the office to overlook the verification of the cause title, in particular with reference to the address of the parties. In the pleadings it has become a habit to describe every adult only as a major without specifying the age of the person, although it is possible for the party when ably assisted by the counsel to give the age. As a routine, address given in the cause title is vague. In my experience; I find that 20 to 25 percent of the litigation gets stagnated at the process level for non-compliance of the provisions of Rule 14-A. In the appeals also, the same mistake is committed.