Proper service of summons is essential for upholding a decree; the appellants failed to demonstrate non-service. Ex parte decrees cannot be set aside without sufficient proof of lack of knowledge of the proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.

1. The present appeals have been preferred against the common order dated 28.03.2025, whereby the applications filed by the appellants under Order IX Rule 13 CPC were dismissed. The review application filed under Section 114 read with Section 151 CPC was also dismissed vide order dated 02.05.2025. Since common submissions have been advanced in the context of Civil Suit No. 356/2011, titled Raj Kumar v. Om Prakash Giri , the present appeals are taken up together for consideration and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The background facts in nutshell are:

The respondents (plaintiffs in the suit) instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.19,04,000/- along with interest. In the plaint, it was averred that the defendants were owners in possession of land measuring 1750 sq. yards, forming part of land admeasuring 4 bighas 19 biswas in Khasra No.98, Abadi Village Gokalpur, Delhi, presently known as Ganga Vihar Colony (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”). It was pleaded that, being desirous of purchasing the suit property, the parties entered into an agreement dated 14.10.2007 for a total sale consideration of Rs.52.50 lakhs, pursuant to which an aggregate amount of Rs.14 lakhs was paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants towards advance/part consideration. It was further averred that the defendants neither came forward to execute the sale deed nor refunded the said amount, leading the plaintiffs to institute the suit seeking recovery of the amount along with interest. Summons of the suit were issued and the defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement. However, upon their subsequent non-appearance, they were proceeded ex parte, culminating in the passing of an ex parte judgment and decree dated 21.08.2012.

3. The appellants, arrayed as defendant nos. 3 and 4 in the suit, filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, claiming that they were never served with summons in the suit and, consequently, were unaware of the passing of the ex parte judgment and decree against them. It was their case that they acquired knowledge of the decree only upon service of process in Execution Petition No. 33/2024. The said applications were opposed by the respondents and, upon consideration, came to be dismissed by the Trial Court vide the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants (defendant nos. 3 and 4) assailed the impugned order contending that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the summons of the suit were received by Shiv Kumar Giri (defendant no. 2) only, who was stated to be residing separately, and therefore service upon him could not be presumed to constitute valid service upon the other defendants. It was next contended that though a Vakalatnama came to be filed and signed by one Mr K Kumar, Advocate, however, the defendants were shown to be represented through one Ms Priyanka Rai, Advocate. It was further contended that although a vakalatnama was filed in the suit, the present appellants were neither served nor had they signed the vakalatnama or authorised any counsel to represent them. It was argued that the written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants through a power of attorney holder, namely Praveen Kumar Jain, and that the present appellants had neither executed the General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 11.08.2010 nor authorised the said attorney to act or file pleadings on their behalf. The written statement had not even been signed by the present appellants, thus, showing that the entire exercise was carried out by the plaintiffs in collusion. It is also submitted that a complaint has also been filed on 11.07.2025 against the plaintiffs, the said attorney and the concerned advocates, alleging unauthori