CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Sakharam Bhaskar Bapat vs Padmakar Mahadev Bhat

Bombay High Court · Decided on 5 September 1906 · Citation: (1906) 8 BOMLR 757

HON’BLE JUDGES
Lawrence Jenkins, J · Beaman, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 80
CASE NUMBER
Appeal No. 13 of 1906
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

3 paragraphs · 149 words

Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.—The report of the Bailiff verified by his affidavit does not satisfy us that the serving officer was entitled to affix a copy of the summons on the outer door of the house in which the respondent ordinarily resided, as provided by Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code.

2.

There is merely a statement that the respondent could not be found. But it does not appear that any effort was made to find him, or that even enquiry was made of his son who was found as to where the respondent was.

3.

The serving officer did not carry out the requirement of the Civil Procedure Code, and we must therefore send down the notice for proper service. In this connection we refer to Rajendra Nath Sanyal v. Jan Meah ILR (1898) 26 Cal. 101 and Sakina v. Gauri Sahai ILR (1902) 24 All. 302.