CourtKutchehry.com
Supreme CourtDivision Bench

Praveen Kumar and Others vs Suresh Chand and Others

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 16 August 2000 · Citation: AIR 2000 SC 1216 : (2000) AIRSCW 880 : (2000) 3 JT 4 : (2000) 2 SCALE 226 : (2000) 3 SCC 652 : (2000) 2 SCR 111 : (2000) 2 Supreme 660 : (2000) 1 UJ 597

HON’BLE JUDGES
N. Santosh Hedge, J · A. P. Misra, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or 9R 13, Sec 115Evidence Act, 1872 Sec 45
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Appeal No. 4567 Of 2000 Case No: 4567 of 2000, 9096 of 1999
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 354 words
1.

Leave granted.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3.

The appellants filed an application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the ex-parte decree. The case of the appellants is that the process was not duly served on them and the process server played fraud and forged signatures of the appellants. The trial Court permitted the signatures to be testified by the hand writing expert who gave the same opinion. The trial Court relying upon the opinion of the handwriting expert came to the conclusion that the appellants had not been duly served hence allowed the application and set aside the ex-parte decree. Against that respondent preferred a revision in the High Court. The High Court set aside the findings of the trial Court and held that the appellants have been served. This decision of the High Court is challenged before us.

4.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that the question whether there was service on the appellants or not, the High Court fell into error. When the trial Court after taking into consideration evidence on the record including the opinion of the handwriting expert came to the conclusion that there was no service and allowed the application, then High Court could only under its revisional power have interfered if trial Court committed any jurisdictional error, or its decision would have resulted into any manifest injustice. Trial Court not having committed any such error the High Court should not have interfered with the finding recorded by it. On the other hand High Court entered into weighing evidence and recording that trial Court should not have found no service, only because handwriting expert says so.

5.

Hence, the High Court should not have interfered with the finding of fact recorded by the trial Court.

6.

Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 3rd November, 1998 of the High Court is set aside and that of the trial Court restored. The appeal is remanded back to the trial Court to proceed with the suit expeditiously as the matter is old.