 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Report No. 140 5.2. Uncertainty regarding places outside jurisdiction-Recommendations.- (a) The first point that arises is whether Order V, rule 19A inserted in 1976 (which provides for the simultaneous issue of summons for service by post in addition to personal service)1 can be invoked in a case where the defendant is outside jurisdiction, i.e. in the case deal within Order V, rule 21. Order V, rule 21, directs that the court to which the summons is sent under rule 21 (or rule 22) shall proceed, as if the summons had been issued by such court, and this would seem to attract Order V, rules 9 to 19. But on this particular point a controversy can arise. It is desirable that an opportunity should be taken of making the position clear in this regard. (b) Besides this, it will also be convenient if places near the border of a court's jurisdiction are brought under rule 9 itself. If Court 'A' wishes to serve a summons on a person in village 'X' which is in the jurisdiction of court 'B' but is very near the border of court 'A's jurisdiction, it is more convenient to allow service by the staff of Court 'A' than to leave the service to Court 'B'. (c) We, therefore, recommend that Order V, rule 21 C.P.C. should be suitably revised to incorporate the points mentioned in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of this paragraph. 1. Chapter III, supra.    |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||
Back