Honble SINHA, J.—Leave granted.

Jurisdiction of a Land Revenue Court to set aside an ex-parte decree is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 28th July, 2003 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 11599 of 2003.

2. A suit for partition was filed by Kulwant Singh, the respondent No.4 herein against the appellant as also the other respondents. The said suit was decreed ex-parte against the appellant. He had been residing in Houston, Texas, in the United State of America for more than 25 years. He had never been served with any notice, although respondent No.4 had full knowledge of his correct address.

3. Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Phagwara, while passing a judgment and order dated 26th November, 1997 observed that no notice could be served upon the appellant.

4. An application in terms of Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the appellant herein alleging :-

"That the respondents-applicants were not at all served or notified in any manner whatsoever in the above partition proceedings. Neither any summons of this court nor any other process whatsoever of this court was ever served on the respondent-applicants. And the ex parte order dated 26.11.1997 mentioned is thus invalid, illegal and ineffective on the rights and title of the applicant-respondents in the land mentioned above and they are entitled to get it set aside."

5. Tehsildar, Phagwara, exercising his power as Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, as regards the service of notice upon the appellant herein, observed in the following terms :-

"On 3.7.1998, the file was presented and notice issued to the petitioner in the partition proceedings was received back un-served which is taken on record. It was reported that Kulwant Singh son of Uttam Singh is residing in foreign country and the original file was also not received in the court. The next date of hearing was fixed for summoning of the record and the parties. The counsel for the respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 was directed that the correct address of the petitioner be furnished within two days. On 26.8.98, the file was presented in the court. The notice sent to the petitioner was received again without service, which was taken on record. It was reported by the process server that the address furnished by the opposite party is wrong. The original file has been received from the record. The case was kept for consideration on 10.9.98. On 10.9.1998, the court was not held on account of some official engagement. On 9.10.98 and 16.10.98, I could not make consideration being busy in official work. Therefore, the case was kept for 30.10.98 for consideration."

Tehsildar, however, relied upon a commentary by some author on Section 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 wherein the following observation has been made :-

"It is not admissible for a revenue officer to set aside an ex parte order in partition proceedings except by means of a review as the provisions of civil procedure code relating to setting aside of ex parte decree have no application to such a case."

Holding that the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not maintainable, the same was dismissed by an order dated 30th October, 1998.

6. An appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed by the Collector, Phagwara by an order dated 24th March, 1999 wherein inter alia it was held that the service of notice by substituted service having been taken recourse to as envisaged under Section 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, the ex-parte decree could have been validly passed by the Assistant Collector.

7. A revision petition filed before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, was dismissed by his order dated 28th August, 2002.

8. A revision petition filed thereagainst had also been dismissed by the Financial Commissioner by his order dated 19th May, 2003.

9. By reason of the impugned judgment the High Court while noticing the purp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document