C.R.P./92/2016 of M/S QUICK LINK CARGO SERVICES Vs M/S PARRAGON PUBLISHING INDIA PVT LTD
Parties
- M/S QUICK LINK CARGO SERVICES (PETITIONER)
- M/S PARRAGON PUBLISHING INDIA PVT LTD (RESPONDENT)
Cites (2 resolved of 3 detected)
- CRL.REV.P./85/2008 of DR. JAJANA SAINI GUPTA & ANR Vs STATE NCT OF DELHI (2008)
- AIR 1980 SC 1163 (1980) DISTINGUISHED
Statutes cited (3)
- code of civil procedure, 5 (1908)
- code of civil procedure (1908)
- limitation act (1963)
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+C.R.P. 92/2016 & CM No. 22930/2016 (stay)
M/S QUICK LINK CARGO SERVICES
..... Petitioner
Through:Mr. Sanjay Luthra & Mr. H.P.S.Dhawan, Advs.
versus
M/S PARRAGON PUBLISHING INDIA PVT LTD ..... RespondentThrough:Mr. Suhail Sehgal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBAO R R%18.01.2018
The petitioner had instituted civil suit (suit no. 153/2015) against therespondent.It appears, on the report of the process server indicatingdelivery of the summons through person named Virender on 21.08.2013,the respondent (the defendant) not having appeared, the trial Court set therespondent ex-parte.The respondent later moved an application underOrder 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) read withSection 5 of Limitation Act, which application was allowed by order dated11.02.2016with costs of Rs. 5,000/-, liberty having been granted to therespondent/defendant to file written statement within period of one monthfrom the date of the said order.
The petition at hand takes exception to the said order setting aside theex-parte proceedings, the prime contention being that the summons hadC.R.P. 92/2016page 1 of 2
been duly served in terms of provisions contained in Order 29 (2) (b) CPCand that delay had not been properly explained and, therefore, the order iserroneous.
Though issues of maintainability of the revision petition against anorder of above nature is also raised, this Court without going into the saidissue finds no substance in the petition on merits. There is no clarity as towhat was the connection of the person Virender with the respondent. Theservice of the summons was to be effected on the respondent, companyduly incorporated. It is well-settled that the service should have been firstattempted on the Secretary or on the Director or other Principal of theCorporation [Shalimar Rope Works Ltd. Vs. Abdul Hussain H.M. HasanbhaiRassiwala & Ors. AIR 1980 SC 1163; Rajesh Bansal vs. Ansal HousingConstruction Ltd. AIR 2002 Delhi 214; Naresh Kumar Gupta vs. NavBharat Times Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. 1994 (28) DRJ 56;Datamation Consultation Pvt. LtdVs. Sh. Ranjit Kumar, decided on25.03.2009 in WP (C) 2394/2006 and Sanjeev Kumar vs. Sweta Kumari,decided on 05.05.2010 in C.R.P. 85/2008].
Be that as it may, the learned trial Judge having exercised the judicialdiscretion in favour of allowing the respondent/defendant to participate inthe proceedings, this Court finds no good reasons to interfere in the exerciseof the said discretion.
The petition and the pending application are dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J
JANUARY 18, 2018
nkC.R.P. 92/2016page 2 of 2