Considering that in many second appeals and miscellaneous petitions notices were not served on opposite parties for years together for want of correct names and addresses, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the High Court Registry to ensure the mandatory procedure for mentioning necessary details was complied with.
Justice S.M. Subramaniam observed that Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure stipulated that the particulars were contained in the plaint. As per Rule 1 (b) name, description and place of residence of plaintiff and according to Rule 1 (c) name, description and place of residence of defendant should be ascertained.
Details should be described in a clear and legible manner. Insufficient or unclear addresses should not be entertained in the plaints and all such plaints should be returned by the Registry itself. The court directed that the order be communicated to all courts in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
The Registry in all courts should ensure the mandatory procedure was complied with strictly. In view of advancements in technology, the Registry should ensure that mobile numbers, phone numbers or email addresses were mentioned and a copy of self-attested Aadhaar card was enclosed along with case documents at the time of filing, the judge said.
In many cases, plaints and appeal suits did not contain the correct addresses of the parties, as the original suits were filed before trial courts. The counsels appearing before the trial courts were mentioning the names of the villages and the places without providing the correct addresses.
Such insufficient addresses were routinely repeated in the second appeal proceedings too. When the second appeal proceedings were instituted before the High Court, it would be difficult for the parties to serve notice on the opposite parties.
Therefore, the appeal examiners of the Registry should ensure that names, descriptions, residences and other details were clearly mentioned in plaints and interlocutory applications. In the absence of clear addresses, the petitions were liable to be returned.
In the event of any lapse in this regard, the appeal examiners should be held accountable for their lapses, negligence or dereliction of duty, the judge observed. The court passed the direction while hearing a second appeal. Since the correct address was not mentioned, the court directed that the correct address be obtained and notice served on the parties.
