HC worried by ‘dehumanising’ system of serving summons

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday expressed its concern over the ‘dehumanising’ system of serving summons or notices and emphasised on the need of modern techniques for serving documents on parties. The HC while referring to the speed of serving documents through the office of Sheriff of Mumbai, observed that it is slower than the pace at which glaciers melt.

A single-judge bench of Justice Gautam Patel said, “We need to simplify our processes, our systems and our procedures. They are already complicated enough as it is. We have absolutely no cause or call to complicate them further or to make them any more intimidating than they already are. The real challenge in every Court now is to find mechanisms by which we can restore to the litigants who come before us some measure of dignity and self-respect; for this system of ours does nothing except dehumanize the ordinary litigant and force him or her into needless self-abnegation. We insist on difficult and arcane procedures.”

“Our systems move with infuriating slowness — glaciers melt faster than service through the Sheriff ’s office. When it comes to parties overseas, we hold to a wholly unreasonable mistrust of couriers, email and other high-speed services, never mind that this is the way the world does business before being forced into court,” Justice Patel added.

The observations were made while hearing a notice of motion filed by Aviation Travels Private Limited, seeking quashing of an adverse order passed way back in 2003. The plea contended that the impugned order was passed ex parte (after hearing only one side). The plea company claimed that it was never heard by the judge (then) before passing the orders.

Justice Patel, however, noted that the impugned order records name of an advocate, who represented the company. To this, the company argued that the advocate named in the order, was never engaged by it and in fact it was never served with the notice of the court for responding to the suit filed against them.

“Despite being served with the notice and the summons through the advocate, who also sought instructions from the company, now the company argues that it should have been served, and we must all go back to some antediluvian era. The suggestion is not just unacceptable. It is preposterous. Apart from anything else, the plea puts technical procedure, in this case entirely incorrectly invoked, above what is just. That is something I am not persuaded ever to do, hence the petition stands dismissed,” Justice Patel ruled.