RAVISHANKAR SHUKLA Vs. PRATIMA MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without adhering to the provisions given under Order 5 Rule 17 of CPC, the learned trial Court passed the order for substituted service of summons which is not permissible. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Tulsi Bai Vs. Mukesh Kumar, reported in 2014 (3) CGLJ, 316.

(2.) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff would submit that the petitioner/defendant No.1 was avoiding service of summons, therefore, an application was moved for substituted service and same was allowed and thus, it may be presumed that summons was duly served upon defendant No.1. He would further submit that in the execution proceedings summons was served. Apparently, summons vide Annexure R 1/2 dtd. 14/11/2010 shows the signature of the petitioner/defendant No.1 and this fact has been observed by the learned trial Court as well as learned appellate Court whereas the same has been suppressed by the petitioner in this petition, therefore, there is no scope of interference and there is concurrent finding recorded by courts below, thus the petition preferred by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records with utmost circumspection.