Summons served on wife is sufficient: HC

S Shyam Prasad | NT

Bengaluru: The High Court has said that the summons served on the wife of the litigant is sufficient service and it is presumed that he has knowledge of it.

A defendant in a case against whom the notice was served in February 2014 approached the Court with an appeal in March 2019 contending that he had no knowledge of the case.

The High Court however noted that his wife had received the notice and it was sufficient.

“As noticed above, the suit summons was served on the wife of the Defendant on 20.2.2014 and on the Defendant on 30.4.2014 as is forthcoming from the RPAD acknowledgement card,” the HC said.

Citing the judgement in Mahantesh Vs Manjunath case, the HC said, “As held in the case of Mahantesh the summons served on the wife of the Defendant is required to be held as sufficient service. It is required to be presumed that the Defendant had knowledge of the suit as on the said date.”

DH Ramanjinappa, a resident of Bengaluru filed an appeal in the High Court in 2019. It was heard by the division bench of Justice PS Dinesh Kumar and Justice CM Poonacha which gave its judgement recently.

Agreement to sell

Ramanjinappa had entered into an agreement to sell a property. He had obtained the advance and was supposed to execute the sale deed within two years.

When he did not perform his liability the other party filed a suit against him for specific performance. The notice in the case was served on the wife of Ramanjinappa. Ramanjinappa however did not appear in court.

In 2014, the Trial Court gave an ex-parte order directing him to execute the sale deed within 90 days. Ramanjinappa however approached the High Court only in 2019.

While holding that the notice served on the wife was sufficient, the HC said that Ramanjinappa had failed to give reasons for the delay in filing the appeal.

Rejecting the appeal, the HC said, “The delay for the period when the Defendant was served with the suit summons in February/April, 2014 till March, 2019 remains unexplained. Hence, the Appellant has failed in demonstrating sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the above appeal. In the absence of the Defendant specifically refuting the service of suit summons as noticed above, the cause of action shown for condonation of delay only from March, 2019, is liable to be rejected.” (RFA 627/2019)