Full Judgment Text
$~10 & 11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
rd
Decided on :- 23 February, 2018
+ CM(M) 207/2018 & CM 6668/2018
M/S FLINT GROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anand Mishra, Advocate.
Versus
M/S JAGRAN PRAKASHAN LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through: None.
AND
+ CM(M) 208/2018 & CMs 6669-6670/2018
FLINT GROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anand Mishra, Advocate.
versus
JAGRAN PRAKASHAN LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. Both these petitions arise out of orders dated 25.05.2017 and
03.11.2017 passed by the additional district judge on the file of
summary suit (CIS No.209714/2016) instituted by the petitioner
against the respondent (defendant) on 08.02.2016 for recovery of
Rs.23,88,679/- invoking the procedure set out in Order XXXVII of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
CM(M) Nos.207/2018 & 208/2018 Page 1 of 3
2. It appears that by the order dated 25.05.2017, the additional
district judge taking note of the application under Order V Rule 20
CPC moved by the petitioner (plaintiff) on 04.03.2017, directed that
the summary suit be treated as ordinary suit and when the petitioner
took exception by moving an application for review, the same was
declined by order dated 03.11.2017, primarily on the basis of
comparison of the prescribed forms for service of summons under
Order XXXVII CPC and for publication under Order V Rule 20 CPC.
3. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that repeated processes issued under Order XXXVII CPC have been
evaded successfully by the respondent/defendant. He submitted that
the application under Order V Rule 20 CPC was filed under some
misconception and wrong advice, it being wholly unnecessary
inasmuch as there was already a report of refusal on the part of the
defendant to receive the summons and its consequent service by
affixation as noted in the proceedings recorded on 29.11.2016. At the
same time, he submits that the view taken by the additional district
judge is not correct in view of the rulings of Single Judges of this
Court in U.K. Paints (India) Ltd. v. Surlux Medi Equip Ltd. & Anr.,
2001 (60) DRJ 472 and Ashish Goel and Ors. v. Prem Chand Gupta
and Anr., CM(Main) No. 1351/2008, decided on 08.04.2010.
4. Since the respondent has not yet been served, issuance of a
notice to him would be unnecessary.
5. In the given facts and circumstances, it appears that the order on
the review application dated 03.11.2017 has been passed by the
CM(M) Nos.207/2018 & 208/2018 Page 2 of 3
additional district judge without taking into consideration the reports
on the previous processes, particularly the one noted in the
proceedings dated 29.11.2016 and also not taking into account the
rulings in U.K. Paints (India) Ltd. (supra) and Ashish Goel ( supra ).
Thus the order dated 03.11.2017, which is challenged by CM(M) no.
208/2018 is set aside. The learned additional district judge is directed
to reconsider the review application in the light of the law relied upon.
6. In above view, the counsel for the petitioner submits that
presently he does not press CM(M) no.207/2018.
7. Both the petitions and the applications filed therewith stand
disposed of accordingly.
th
8. The learned trial judge shall take up the matter on 15 March,
2018 for abovementioned purpose.
9. Dasti under the signatures of Court Master.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
FEBRUARY 23, 2018
srb
CM(M) Nos.207/2018 & 208/2018 Page 3 of 3