Law:

Section:

  Counsel and client--- ----Fact that client chose to deny Vakalatnama of counsel on file would seriously affect client's credibility. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Concurrent finding of fact by two Courts had not been assailed on grounds contained in S. 115, C. P. C.---Re-examination of such finding declined in revision. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 27 & O. V, R.1---Summons---Object. Section 27 and Order V, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure provide that the suit had to be decided after hearing the defendant in respect of claim contained in the plaint. The summons are issued to inform the defendant of institution of suit in sufficient time before the date fixed for hearing and the procedure laid down for service of summons is aimed to guard against fraud and ensure that the proper person has been served and apprised of claim against him contained in the liz instituted in the Court. Whenever and wherever the defendant appears in Court in person or through his recognized agent, files his written defence, he is precluded to raise any objection with respect to the mode of service. The ultimate object of the procedure and rules relating to summons is to facilitate the hearing of the suit and adjudication on merits. It is not aimed to prolong agony of the people in Court and are not meant for technical compliance. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 27 & O. V, R.1---Summons---Defect in the mode of service which has not prevented the defendant from appearing in the Court and filing his defence is a mere irregularity and has no vitiating consequence. Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S.27---Subsequent transferee is entitled to protection if he establishes by unimpeachable evidence that he entered into a subsequent transaction in good faith and without notice of earlier transaction. A bare reading of section 27 of the Specific Relief Act makes abundantly clear that a subsequent transferee is entitled to protection if he establishes by unimpeachable evidence that he entered into a subsequent transaction in good faith and without notice on earlier transaction.   The ratio emerging from all these cases…