Skip to content


Sakharam Bhaskar Bapat Vs. Padmakar Mahadev Bhat - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberAppeal No. 13 of 1906
Judge
Reported in(1906)8BOMLR757
AppellantSakharam Bhaskar Bapat
RespondentPadmakar Mahadev Bhat
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882), section 80-service of summons-practice.;where there is merely a statement 'that the respondent cannot be found, but it does not appear that any effort was made to flad him, the serving officer is not entitled to affix a copy of the summons on the outer dour of the house in which the respondent ordinarily resided, as provided by section 80 of the civil procedure code, 1882. - .....we refer to rajendra nath sanyal v. jan meah ilr (1898) 26 cal. 101 and sakina v. gauri sahai ilr (1902) 24 all......
Judgment:

Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.

1. 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.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //