Court imposes Rs. 50,000 costs on Plaintiff for procedural non-compliance in Commercial Suit
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has highlighted the importance of strict adherence to procedural rules in the service of summons, especially in commercial suits. The Court criticized the plaintiff, Cherag Balsara, for failing to effect valid service of the writ of summons on defendants in a commercial suit filed in 2018. The court's decision came in response to an Interim Application filed by the defendants, led by Bina Ramnik Chawda, seeking permission to file their written statement.
Justice Gauri Godse, while delivering the order, emphasized that the service of the writ of summons must comply with the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980, and the Bailiffs' Manual. The lack of proper documentation and verification rendered the service invalid, allowing the defendants to retain their right to file a written statement.
The plaintiff's reliance on a service affidavit from 2019, which was found insufficient, and a subsequent fresh affidavit using disapproved documents, did not satisfy the Court's requirements. Despite multiple opportunities, the plaintiff failed to provide valid proof of service, leading the Court to rule in favor of the defendants.
The Court directed the defendants to file their written statement within four weeks, while also mandating the Deputy Sheriff to report on procedural compliance failures. Additionally, the Court imposed a Rs. 50,000 cost on the plaintiff for not adhering to court orders and attempting to validate service with inadequate documentation.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to procedural diligence, ensuring that justice is not denied due to technical lapses. The decision also highlights the crucial role of bailiffs in the administration of justice, as improper service can delay or derail the legal process.
Bottom Line:
Service of writ of summons must comply with procedural rules and the Bailiffs' Manual; failure to adhere leads to invalid service and cannot forfeit the defendant's right to file a written statement.
Statutory provision(s):
Order V Rule 9(5), Order VIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908; Rule 76 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980; Bailiffs' Manual.
