Judgment

KHALID, J.:- These two appeals arise from the same suit and can be disposed of by a common Judgment. The facts necessary to understand the question involved in the appeals can be briefly stated as follows :

One Kalu Ram was the owner of 90 kanals of land. He sold this land in favour of three brothers, Kewal Ram, Chet Ram and Kuldip Ram for a consideration of Rs. 65,000/- by a registered sale deed dt. 1-8-1966. Kewal Ram is residing in Village Badala in Jullunder District. Chet Ram and Kuldip Ram were residing at 71, Windsor Road, Forest Gate, London E-7.

2. Smt. Ram Lubhai, minor daughter of Kalu Ram, the vendor, filed a suit, from which these appeals arise, for possession of the land on the ground that she being the daughter of the vendor had superior right of pre-emption as against the vendees who were strangers. Kewal Ram alone was served in the suit. The other two were not served. Substituted service was, therefore, taken for service on them by publication in a vernacular paper. The suit was decreed on 31-7-1969 against all the three defendants, ex parte against Chet Ram and Kuldeep Ram. Kewal Ram filed an appeal against this decree and judgment. He made his brothers Chet Ram and Kuldip Ram as pro forma respondents giving their village address for service. In the appeal also they were served by substituted service. The appeal was heard on 5-1-1971 and was dismissed.

3. On 24-3-1971, Kuldip Ram and Chet Ram filed an application under 0. 9, R. 13 of C.P.C. in the trial Court for setting aside the ex parte decree against them on the ground that they were neither served in the trial Court nor in the appellate Court. This application was resisted by the plaintiff on the ground that the application before the trial Court was incompetent since the decree had merged in the appellate decree. Evidence was taken and after hearing the parties the trial Court set aside the entire decree. The trial Court held that Kuldip Ram and Chet Ram were residing in England and no attempt was made to serve them personally. That being so, the application was competent in the trial Court as they were neither served in the trial Court nor in the appellate Court.

4. Against this order dt. 10-1-1982, the plaintiff filed a revision petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana as C.R.P. No. 147 of 1972. The High Court felt that there was no error of jurisdiction in the order sought to be revised, but held that since Kewal Ram had contested the suit, there was no ground to set aside the decree against him. On this ground, the petition was partly allowed. The decree against Kewal Ram was allowed to stand but was set aside against the other two.

5. Not being satisfied with this order, the plaintiff filed an application for review on the ground that the decree for possession by way of pre-emption was joint against all the defendants, that there was neither specification of the shares in the land for the three different vendees nor specification of the purchase price paid by them and that as such the order setting aside the decree in part was bad. For this purpose reliance was placed on a Full Bench decision of the Lahore High Court Court, reported in AIR 1945 Lah 184. Reliance was also placed on the proviso to O. 9, R. 13 C.P.C. This review petition was dismissed by the High Court by order dt. May 30, 1973, relying upon the Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Kartar Singh v. Jagat Singh, ILR (1971) 2 Punj & Har 110. Hence these appeals by special leave, the earlier (C.A. 15/74) by Kewal Ram and the other (C.A. 1875/74) by the plaintiff.

6. The learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the two brothers of Kewal Ram were at all relevant times aware of the pendency of the suit and that the Court below committed an error in setting aside the decree against them. To reinforce this contention, he brought to our notice the fact that even in the appeal filed by Kewal Ram, the address given of his brothers was the vill