In a significant ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside an ex-parte order passed in two connected civil revision petitions (C.R.P. Nos. 242 and 361 of 2024), citing a violation of natural justice due to incorrect service of notices. The single bench, led by Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari, emphasized that the right to be heard is fundamental, and decisions made without proper notice cannot stand.
Background of the Case
The case arose from two civil revision petitions filed by respondents Kilari Anand Paul and two others, who sought to challenge an earlier order. The original petitions (O.P. No. 607 of 2017) were filed in the Principal District Court, Visakhapatnam, under Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, by the Ancient Pattern Pentecostal Church (represented by its President, Smt. Kilari Esther Rani) and another respondent.
The petitioners had requested:
1. An inquiry under Section 23 of the Act and handover of the society’s properties and bank account operations to appropriate office bearers.
2. A declaration that the first respondent fraudulently obtained renewal certificates by misrepresenting office bearers’ names.
3. Injunction against using these certificates with public officers or bankers.
The case faced complications when the respondents argued that the petitions were barred under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), leading to the dismissal of O.P. No. 607 of 2017 on December 14, 2023. This dismissal prompted the filing of civil revision petitions, which were allowed ex-parte by the High Court on June 18, 2024, due to alleged refusal of notice by the respondents.
Key Legal Issues and Arguments
1. Proper Service of Notices:
The central issue before the Court was whether the notices in the civil revision petitions were served correctly on the review petitioners (respondents). The petitioners, represented by senior advocate Sri K. Chidambaram and counsel Sri G. Yaswanth, argued that the address mentioned for service in the civil revision petitions was incorrect, resulting in notices being undelivered or refused.
2. Principles of Natural Justice:
The review petitioners contended that they were not given a fair opportunity to be heard, as the ex-parte order was based on deemed service of notice. The petitioners submitted that they had no knowledge of the proceedings due to improper service.
3. Remedies for Ex-Parte Orders:
Referring to precedents, including Koushik Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society vs. Ameena Begum and Lawyers Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs. Sri Krishna Grah Nirman Samiti Ltd., the review petitioners argued that they were entitled to seek a review of the ex-parte decision under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, among other legal avenues, if summons were not duly served.
Court’s Observations and Ruling
Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari, while allowing the review petitions, made critical observations regarding the importance of proper service and adherence to natural justice principles:
1. Improper Address Leading to Faulty Service:
The Court noted discrepancies in the address used for sending notices, which led to the failure of delivery. In some instances, the address was incorrectly mentioned, while in others, overwriting of digits created ambiguity. The Court found that such errors resulted in incorrect delivery, making it unjust to assume that the respondents refused service. “Proper notice is the cornerstone of any legal proceeding, and assuming deemed service without ensuring correct address breaches natural justice,” observed Justice Tilhari.
2. Right to Be Heard:
Stressing the significance of fair hearing, the Court cited a previous judgment in Shivdev Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Others, where it was held that a High Court retains the inherent power to review its own orders to prevent miscarriage of justice. Justice Tilhari emphasized, “No court order should adversely affect a party without granting an opportunity for hearing, as this contravenes fundamental legal principles.”
3. Ex-Parte Order Set Aside:
Concluding that the review petitioners were denied a fair hearing due to procedural lapses, the Court set aside the ex-parte order dated June 18, 2024. The civil revision petitions were directed to be listed for a fresh hearing on October 21, 2024. Additionally, the Court ordered the petitioners to correct the address for serving notices and to ensure that the respondents are duly represented in the upcoming proceedings.
