Praveen Kohli v. Komal @ Kamlesh

1. The present review application under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC is arising out of the order dated 13.03.2015 passed by this Court wherein, the applicant has filed an appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.08.2013 passed by the learned Trial Court of Shri Sameer Bajpai, Tis Hazari 2015:DHC:4567-DB Court, and order dated 21.04.2014 passed by the learned Court of Ms. Reena Singh Nag, Judge, Family Court, West, Tis Hazari Courts.

2. Consequently, the present review application is on the following grounds:  The applicant has not been residing at B-39, Gali No. 0, Hari Nagar Extn. New Delhi, therefore there was no question of any service of summons upon the applicant personally. However, his brother Narender Kohli resides at 115-116, Pocket 5, Sector-21, Rohini, Delhi. Since, the applicant was not residing on the aforesaid address there was no question of his presence on the said address on 19.09.2012. It is submitted that the applicant was residing at EX-39, Gali no. 0, Hari Nagar, New Delhi, where the process server admittedly never served the summon to the applicant, copy of the report filed by the process server is annexed as

ANNEXURE ‘A’.  The false report of the process server was filed before the learned Trial Court. As per the report, the process server visited the address B-39 Extn. Gali No. 0, Hari Nagar, New Delhi on 17.10.2012, where he met some unidentified and unnamed woman, who told the process server that no such person by the name of Praveen Kohli resides there. But there is no photograph of the affixation, nor is there any witness for the said affixation, copy of the said report is annexed as

ANNEXURE ‘B’.  Further, another false report of the process server was filed before the learned Trial Court showing the applicant’s address as 115-116, Pocket-5, Sector-21, Rohini, Delhi. As per the report annexed as

ANNEXURE ‘C’ the process server on 01.09.2012 visited the aforesaid address. Factually, no process server has visited at the aforesaid address on 01.09.2012 and met one Ram Lal. The said Ram Lal had factually died long back and his death certificate is annexed as

ANNEXURE ‘D’.  In the similar way, the report of the process server that he visited at E-179-180, D.S. Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi on 26.10.2012 is also false. There is no such person as Raj Pal who met the process server and the report does not fulfill the essential criteria of service through affixation.  Further a copy of process server as

ANNEXURE ‘F’ is annexed for one another report wherein, the process server has visited the address bearing H No. 115-116, Pocket-5., Sector-21, Rohini, Delhi, on 17.10.2012. The aforesaid report shows that one woman named Meenu and one person named Ram Lal met the process server and thereafter, he had affixed the summon. The same is also false for want of photograph and statement of the witness.

3. All the four process server reports are manipulated and prepared at the instructions of the respondent, in response to which, the applicant made complaint on 06.05.2015 and the copy of the same is annexed as

ANNEXURE ‘G’.

4. The application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC was filed by the applicant through his counsel and moreover was not even filed by the applicant himself. Inadvertently the counsel noted down the next date fixed as 29.10.2013 in place of 19.07.2013. The presiding officer was on leave and the change of date was sheer negligence and was not intentional. Therefore, the order dated 13.03.2015 be reviewed. Thus, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was never served with summons or notice from the learned Trial Court and was deprived from appearing and contesting the false and frivolous petition under section 25 of the Guardian & Wards Act, 1890 for the custody of the minor daughter.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the necessary records.

6. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant not find favor with us, as the applicant himself admits that one Narender is his brother. As per the report of the process server, he has visited the address given in the summon i.e. B-39, Extn., Hari Nagar, New Delhi on 19.09.2012. Then he met one Narender and the said person introduced himself as the brother of the applicant/addressee and thereafter made a telephonic conversation with the applicant. He further stated that the applicant has already received the summon.

7. The process server’s report dated 19.09.2012 discloses the identification of the applicant as well as of one Narender who is the brother of the applicant. The applicant too acknowledges that Narender is his brother. There is nothing on record to suggest that the process server could not have met the said person i.e. Narender, on the aforesaid address, even if it is presumed that the applicant does not reside at the aforesaid address and the address of the applicant so mentioned is within the same locality.

8. The report of the process server specifically states that the brother of the applicant made a telephonic conversation in his presence and the response so received was that the applicant had already received the summon.

9. Moreover, the address of the applicant given in the appeal No.