KUNJA Vs. LALARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Injustice is not law. Justice is law. Shri K.N. Gupta, submits that the Court will not go door to door to deliver justice. But I told him, litigants coming to Court must not see the doors of the Court shut and no Court shall shut its door to the litigants.

(2.) It is another unfortunate case whose number is running into legion. After 12 years this matter has seen the light of the day though it had to be disposed of only by a very short order as a single and simple point of law merely is involved in the case. This appeal is against an order passed by the lower Appellate Court refusing to restore the appeal for rehearing after setting aside ex parte decree passed against the respondents.

(3.) Shri Dubey has made a very short submission founded on violation of Rule 19 of Order 5, C.P.C. and I have no doubt that the contention of learned counsel for the appellant must prevail despite the forceful arguments of Shri Gupta, who appears for the respondents in this case. Shri Dubey has drawn my attention to the lower appellate Court's order dated 19-11-1971 to submit that the appeal could not have heard ex parte without compliance of the provisions of Rule 19, Order 5, C.P.C. and the fact that there was non-compliance of the said provision is writ large on the face of the order. The crucial fact which is not disputed on either side is that the respondents in the Court below were not served personally. Shri Gupta has indeed contended that the service was rather "duly effected" in the manner prescribed by R.17 of O.5, C.P.C. But the moot point is, whether such a service ipso facto becomes effective or there has to be a judicial order accepting the service under R.19, O.5 C.P.C. I quote in extenso appellate Court's order dated 19-11-1971 to appreciate rival contentions :