Courts Aren't For Adjourning Cases: MP High Court Fines Municipality ₹25K Over Failure To Seek Substituted Service Despite Grant Of Time

Update: 2025-10-09 05:30 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

The Madhya Pradesh High Court imposed a cost of ₹ 25,000 on Gwalior Municipal Corporation for failing to file an application for substituted mode service to the respondent through publication despite time granted a month ago.The court in its August 21 order had observed that the notice issued by the corporation to M/s Gleg Engineers Pvt Ltd in their review petition was received back without...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court imposed a cost of ₹ 25,000 on Gwalior Municipal Corporation for failing to file an application for substituted mode service to the respondent through publication despite time granted a month ago.

The court in its August 21 order had observed that the notice issued by the corporation to M/s Gleg Engineers Pvt Ltd in their review petition was received back without any clear endorsement. The counsel for the corporation had contended that the respondent company was trying to avoid service of notice and prayed for a substituted mode of service through publication.  Thus, the court had granted a week to the corporation to file an application under Order 5 Rule 20 CPC. 

Order 5 Rule 20 (1) states - Where the Court is satisfied that there is reason to believe that the defendant is keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service, or that for any other reason the summons cannot be served in the ordinary way, the Court shall order the summons to be served by affixing a copy thereof in some conspicuous place in the Court-house, and also upon some conspicuous part of the house (if any) in which the defendant is known to have last resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain, or in such other manner as the Court thinks fit.

During Tuesday's hearing, the court noted that despite the Corporation's office being 3 km away from the High Court premises, the body had failed to file the application.

Noting that the counsel still prays for further time, the bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia observed

"The Courts are not meant for adjourning the case just for the convenience of the parties. If the Municipal Corporation could not file an application under Order 5 Rule 20 CPC even after expiry of more than one month, then Municipal Corporation has to face the consequences of dismissal in default".

The counsel for the corporation, however, prayed for time to file the said application, subject to payment of costs.

The bench emphasized that the corporation had shown 'total disregard' of the court proceedings and directed; 

"Further time can be granted only on payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to be deposited by the O.I.C. from his own pocket which shall not be reimbursable by the State. Cost to be deposited in the Registry of this Court by tomorrow (08.10.2025)". 

The court also warned that failure to deposit the imposed cost would result in dismissal of the corporation's review petition without any reference. The case was listed for October 13, 2025. 

Case Title: Municipal Corporation Gwalior v M/s Gleg Engineers Pvt Ltd [RP-1079-2018]

For Applicant: Advocate Parth Dixit

Click here to read/download the Order 

Full View


Tags:    

Similar News