Section 28 of CPC deals with the service of summons on a defendant who resides in another state. It provides that a summons may be sent for service in another state to such court and in such manner as may be prescribed by rules in force in that state.
The purpose of Section 28 is to ensure that the defendant is given a fair opportunity to defend themselves in a lawsuit, even if they reside in a different state from the court in which the suit has been filed.
Procedure for service of summons in another state
The following procedure must be followed for service of summons in another state:
- The plaintiff must obtain a copy of the summons from the court in which the suit has been filed.
- The plaintiff must then send the summons to the court in the state where the defendant resides, along with a request for service.
- The court in the other state will then serve the summons on the defendant in the manner prescribed by the rules in force in that state.
- Once the summons has been served, the court in the other state will return it to the court in which the suit has been filed, along with a certificate of service.
Time limit for service of summons in another state
The summons must be served on the defendant within thirty days from the date on which it is sent to the court in the other state. If the summons is not served within thirty days, the court in which the suit has been filed may proceed with the suit ex parte.
Importance of Section 28 of CPC
Section 28 of CPC is an important provision of the CPC, as it ensures that the defendant is given a fair opportunity to defend themselves in a lawsuit, even if they reside in a different state from the court in which the suit has been filed.
Case laws on Section 28 of CPC
Here are some case laws related to Section 28 of CPC:
- M.Y. Padmanabha v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 253: The Supreme Court held that the court cannot proceed with the suit unless the summons has been served on the defendant in the manner prescribed in the CPC, even if the defendant resides in another state.
- State of Punjab v. Baldev Raj Chawla (2002) 6 SCC 291: The Supreme Court held that the court must issue summons to the defendant within thirty days from the date of institution of the suit, even if the defendant resides in another state. If the court fails to do so, the suit will be abated.
- Union of India v. Harbans Lal (2003) 5 SCC 321: The Supreme Court held that the court can issue a substituted service of summons only if it is satisfied that the defendant is evading service, even if the defendant resides in another state.
- Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Gupta (2005) 6 SCC 701: The Supreme Court held that the publication of summons in a newspaper is a last resort and should be used only if the defendant is unknown or cannot be located, even if the defendant resides in another state.
- Union of India v. S.P. Mittal (2008) 1 SCC 115: The Supreme Court held that the consequences of failing to serve summons on the defendant are serious, even if the defendant resides in another state. If the court proceeds with the suit ex parte and the defendant is successful in setting aside the ex parte decree, the plaintiff will have to start the entire process afresh.
These case laws illustrate the importance of Section 28 of CPC and the need to comply with its provisions. The courts have consistently held that the summons must be served on the defendant in the manner prescribed in the CPC, even if the defendant resides in another state, and that the court cannot proceed with the suit unless the summons has been served.