Bhagwan Singh v Chand Singh

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Buttrose J
• Judgment Date: 08 March 1968
• Neutral Citation: [1968] SGHC 6
• Docket Number: Suit No 2095 of 1965
• Date: 08 March 1968
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1968
• Plaintiff Counsel: MN Samy (MN Samy)
• Citation: [1968] SGHC 6
• Defendant Counsel: Chan Sek Keong (Braddell Brothers)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Tort,Whether summary judgment valid,Civil Procedure,Order XIV Rules of the Supreme Court 1934,Whether defendant acted out of malice and without reasonable and probable cause,Whether summons sent by registered post to given address and subsequently returned undelivered sufficiently served,Whether writ of seizure valid,Serving summons by prepaid registered post,Summary judgment,Seizing property under writ of seizure of sale,Non-receipt of summons,Trespass,Goods,Service,Order IX r 14 Rules of the Supreme Court 1934

This is an action according to the endorsement on the writ for damages for trespass to the plaintiff`s house and seizure of his property therein.

The facts which give rise to these proceedings are as follows.

On 29 August 1962, the defendant issued a writ against the plaintiff (Suit No 1099 of 1962) for the recovery of principal and interest due on a promissory note. On 13 September 1962 the plaintiff entered an appearance to the writ in person and gave his address as No 130A Cecil Street, Singapore.

On 19 September 1962 the defendant took out a summons under order XIV of the Rules of the Supreme Court for leave to sign final judgment against the plaintiff which was set down for hearing on 28 September.

On 22 September 1962 and six days before the hearing of the summons the plaintiff filed and delivered his defence and counterclaim in which he asserted, inter alia, that the amount due on the promissory note had been settled in full before the commencement of the action brought against him by the defendant.

It was never in dispute that the plaintiff never in fact had actual notice of the hearing of the summons and never received either a copy of the summons or of the affidavit in support thereof.

From an affidavit filed on behalf of the defendant it appeared that a copy of the summons and of the affidavit in support were sent by registered post on 21 September 1962 in a duly registered envelope addressed to the plaintiff at No 130A Cecil Street, Singapore. It was also ascertained from the Postal Services Department that three unsuccessful attempts were made to deliver this registered article on 22, 24 and 25 September 1962 as the plaintiff, the addressee, was not in when the delivery postman called. The plaintiff`s wife refused to accept the registered article and a request card was then sent to the addressee after the last call on 25 September 1962 to call at the General Post Office to collect it but as on 5 October 1962 it remained still unclaimed it was returned to the defendant`s solicitors.

On 28 September 1962 the summons came on for hearing before the deputy registrar in the absence of the plaintiff.

The order of the deputy registrar was as follows:

Upon the application of the above named plaintiff (ie the defendant in the present case) made this day by summons-in-chambers No 1063/62 and upon reading the affidavit of plaintiff filed herein on 19 September 1962 and upon hearing the solicitor for the plaintiff and the above named defendant, [ie the plaintiff in the present case] not having appeared though duly served with the said summons and affidavit IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff be at liberty to enter final judgment against the defendant for $1,755.62 being the amount claimed and endorsed on the writ of summons in this action together with interest on $1,000 at 20% per annum from 28 August 1962 to the date hereof and $157.50 costs.

Dated this 28 September 1962.

Pursuant to this order it was...