eCourtsIndia

Mettu Ram And Anr. vs. Shambhu Dayal& Ors.

Final Order
Court:High Court of Rajasthan (Jodhpur)
Judge:Hon'ble Vineet Kothari
Case Status:Unknown Status
Order Date:23 Jan 2015
CNR:RJHC010449622011
Download True Copy

AI Summary

A land dispute appeal was dismissed by the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur due to procedural failure - the appellants could not produce proof of newspaper publication for serving unserved respondents, resulting in the appeal being abated. This case highlights the critical importance of strict compliance with procedural requirements in civil litigation.

Ratio Decidendi:
When a court directs substituted service of notice through newspaper publication and the appellant fails to produce proof of such publication, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as abated, as the unserved respondents have not been properly notified and cannot participate in the proceedings.
Obiter Dicta:
The court's emphasis on the necessity of producing documentary proof of compliance with procedural directions suggests that courts will strictly enforce procedural requirements to ensure fairness and natural justice to all parties.

Case Identifiers

Primary Case No:867/2011
Case Type:Civil First Appeal
Case Sub-Type:Civil First Appeal - Land Dispute
Secondary Case Numbers:19507/2011, CFA/867/2011, RJHC010449622011
Order Date:2015-01-23
Filing Year:2011
Court:High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan At Jodhpur
Bench:Single Bench
Judges:Hon'ble Dr. Vineet Kothari

Petitioner's Counsel

N.L. Joshi
Advocate - Appeared

eCourtsIndia AITM

Brief Facts Summary

Mattu Ram and another person filed a civil suit in 2008 in the District Court at Ratangarh seeking declaration and permanent injunction regarding a plot of land against Shambhu Dayal and others. The Additional District Judge dismissed the suit on July 21, 2011. The appellants filed an appeal in the High Court at Jodhpur. During the pendency of the appeal, the Registrar (Administration) permitted the appellants to serve unserved respondents (Respondents Nos. 7 to 10, 14, 16 and legal representatives of deceased Respondent No. 13) through substituted service via newspaper publication on January 30, 2014. However, when the High Court examined the record, it found that the appellants had not produced the required newspaper cuttings as proof of such publication.

Timeline of Events

2008-07-21

Civil Suit No. 04/2008 filed by Mattu Ram and another in the District Court at Ratangarh seeking declaration and permanent injunction regarding a plot of land

2011-07-21

Additional District Judge, Ratangarh dismissed the civil suit

2011-10-12

Civil First Appeal No. 867/2011 filed in the High Court at Jodhpur

2011-10-13

Appeal registered in the High Court

2014-01-30

Registrar (Administration) permitted substituted service of notice through newspaper publication for unserved respondents under Order 5 Rule 20 of Code of Civil Procedure

2015-01-23

High Court dismissed the appeal as abated due to non-production of proof of newspaper publication

Key Factual Findings

Appellants were permitted to serve unserved respondents through substituted service via newspaper publication

Source: Current Court Finding

Appellants failed to produce copy of newspaper cutting showing publication of notices for unserved respondents

Source: Current Court Finding

The appeal is liable to be dismissed as having abated due to non-compliance with procedural direction

Source: Current Court Finding

Primary Legal Issues

1.Whether the appeal should be dismissed as abated due to failure to serve unserved respondents
2.Whether proof of substituted service through newspaper publication was properly produced

Secondary Legal Issues

1.Proper procedure for substituted service under Order 5 Rule 20 of Code of Civil Procedure
2.Consequences of non-compliance with procedural directions regarding service of notice

Questions of Law

Does failure to produce proof of newspaper publication for substituted service result in abatement of appeal? - Answered in affirmative
Can an appeal proceed when unserved respondents have not been properly notified? - Answered in negative

Statutes Applied

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Order 5 Rule 20
Procedure for substituted service of notice through newspaper publication when respondents cannot be served directly

Petitioner's Arguments

The appellants argued that they should be permitted to proceed with the appeal despite the procedural issue. They had been granted permission to serve unserved respondents through newspaper publication and claimed to have complied with this direction.

Respondent's Arguments

The respondents' arguments are not detailed in the order, as the counsel for respondents did not appear or their submissions were not recorded.

Court's Reasoning

The High Court examined the record and found that although the appellants had been permitted to serve unserved respondents (Respondents Nos. 7 to 10, 14, 16 and legal representatives of deceased Respondent No. 13) through substituted service via newspaper publication by the Registrar (Administration) on January 30, 2014, they failed to produce the required proof of such publication. The court held that without evidence of compliance with the procedural direction, the appeal could not proceed. The court reasoned that strict compliance with service procedures is essential to ensure that all parties are properly notified and have an opportunity to be heard. The failure to produce newspaper cuttings showing publication of notices rendered the appeal liable to be dismissed as abated.

Statutory Interpretation Method:
Literal Interpretation - Strict adherence to the requirement of producing proof of newspaper publication
Judicial Philosophy Indicators:
  • Emphasis on Procedural Compliance
  • Strict Adherence to Service Requirements
  • Protection of Rights of Unserved Respondents
Order Nature:Procedural
Disposition Status:Disposed
Disposition Outcome:Dismissed

Impugned Orders

Additional District Judge, Ratangarh, District Churu
Case: Civil Suit No. 04/2008
Date: 2011-07-21

Specific Directions

  1. 1.Appeal dismissed as having abated due to non-production of newspaper cutting showing publication of notices for unserved respondents
  2. 2.50% of Court Fees directed to be refunded to appellants
  3. 3.Copy of order to be sent to parties and learned Trial Court forthwith

Precedential Assessment

Persuasive (Other High Court)

While this is a single bench decision of the Rajasthan High Court dealing with procedural matters, it provides persuasive guidance on the strict application of service procedures under Order 5 Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decision is not binding on other High Courts but serves as persuasive authority on procedural compliance requirements.

Tips for Legal Practice

1.Always maintain meticulous records and produce documentary proof of compliance with court-directed substituted service procedures, particularly newspaper cuttings showing publication of notices
2.Understand that procedural non-compliance can result in dismissal of appeals on technical grounds without substantive examination of the case merits
3.When directed to effect substituted service through newspaper publication, ensure immediate compliance and preservation of evidence to avoid abatement of proceedings

Legal Tags

Procedural compliance and appeal abatement in civil litigationSubstituted service through newspaper publication requirementsOrder 5 Rule 20 Code of Civil Procedure strict complianceUnserved respondents and dismissal of appeals on procedural groundsProof of service and documentary evidence requirements courtsHigh Court appellate jurisdiction procedural dismissal groundsNatural justice and service of notice to all partiesAbatement of appeals due to procedural non-compliance IndiaRegistrar's role in directing substituted service proceduresConsequences of failure to produce proof of newspaper publication

Disclaimer: eCourtsIndia (ECI) is not a lawyer and this analysis is generated by ECI AI, it might make mistakes. This is not a legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal professional for matters requiring legal expertise.

Order Issued After Hearing

Purpose:

Disposed

Before:

Hon'ble Vineet Kothari

Listed On:

23 Jan 2015

Order Text

S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.867/2011. Mattu Ram & Anr. Vs. Shambhu Dayal & Ors.

Judgment dated 23.01.2015

..

1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR.

:: JUDGMENT ::

S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.867/2011.

Mattu Ram & Anr. Vs. Shambhu Dayal & Ors. ..

Date of Judgment :::: 23 rd January, 2015.

P R E S E N T

HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

Appearance:

Mr. N.L. Joshi, for the appellant-plaintiff.

<<>>

BY THE COURT:

  1. This present first appeal is arising out of the judgment and decree dated 21.07.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ratangarh, District Churu in Civil Suit No. 04/2008 "Mattu Ram & Anr. Vs. Shambhu Dayal & Ors." who dismissed the suit filed by the present appellants-plaintiffs seeking declaration and permanent injunction in relation to the plot of land.

  2. It is noticed that the appellants-plaintiffs were permitted to serve the unserved respondents viz. Respondents Nos. 7 to 10, 14, 16 and the proposed legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 13, as LRs No. 13/1 to 13/3, while allowing their

Judgment dated 23.01.2015

..

2/2

application filed under Order 5 Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by the Registrar (Administration) on 30.01.2014. The appellants-plaintiffs were permitted substituted service on the aforesaid unserved respondents by publication of the notices in the newspaper and were required to produce the copy of the newspaper cutting showing such publication.

  1. After having heard the learned counsel for the appellantsplaintiffs and having perused the record of the case, it is noticed that the appellants have not been able to produce copy of the newspaper cutting showing publication of the notices in relation to the unserved respondents, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the present first appeal is liable to be dismissed as having abated.

  2. Accordingly and in view of the above, this first appeal filed by the plaintiffs-appellants–Mattu Ram & Anr. is dismissed as having abated. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties and the learned Trial Court concerned forthwith.

  3. In the circumstances of the case, 50% of the Court Fees is directed to be refunded back to the appellants.

(Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J.

Original Order Copy

Get a certified copy of this order

Share This Order

Case History of Orders

Order(1) - 23 Jan 2015

Final Order

Viewing
Similar Case Search

Similar Case Searches

Rajasthan High Court land dispute appeal dismissal procedureCivil First Appeal abatement due to non-service of respondentsSubstituted service by newspaper publication requirements IndiaOrder 5 Rule 20 Code of Civil Procedure complianceHigh Court Jodhpur property dispute appellate jurisdiction decisionProcedural failure in civil appeal dismissal RajasthanUnserved respondents and appeal abatement legal consequencesNewspaper publication notice service proof requirements courtsMattu Ram versus Shambhu Dayal land dispute caseCourt fees refund in dismissed civil appeals IndiaAdditional District Judge Ratangarh civil suit judgment appealLegal representatives of deceased respondent substitution procedureAppellate court dismissal for procedural non-compliance groundsService of notice and appeal abatement doctrine IndiaRajasthan property litigation procedural requirements and compliance