The main legal point established in the judgment is that substitute service through publication can only be accepted when it is proved that the newspaper has wide circulation in the area and the defendants are in a position to read the newspaper.

Alok Singh, J.

1. The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 1.10.2004 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Gurdaspur as well as order dated 13.8.2007 passed by Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court Gurdaspur (Annexures P-l and P-2) whereby the application of the petitioner-defendant No. 2 under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the present case are that plaintiffs have filed suit for declaration against the defendants inter alia on the ground that land in dispute was earlier owned by Nihala Singh son of Giana resident of Village Kot Todar Mal, Tehsil Gurdaspur, who had mortgaged with possession the same with Udham Singh son of Assa Singh vide mortgage deed dated 4.1.1930; After the death of Udham Singh, the mortgagee rights had developed upon Lal Singh and Banta Singh in equal shares and accordingly Mutation No. 1209 was sanctioned in their favour; Banta Singh died issueless without leaving behind any widow and as such his estate had developed upon Lal Singh; Lal Singh became the mortgagee of the entire mortgaged land; the plaintiffs are the heirs of Lal Singh hence now defendants have matured their title over suit; Suit was decreed exparte vide judgment dated 27.12.2000.

3. An application under Order 9 Rule 13 was moved by defendants No. 1 and 2 for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 22.12.2000. Application moved by defendants No. 1 and 2/petitioner herein was dismissed vide order dated 1.10.2005 and appeal against order dated 1.10.2004 was also dismissed by the appellate Court vide judgment dated 13.8.2007.

4. Order 9 Rule 13 CPC reads as under: -

13. Setting aside decree ex parte against defendant.- In any case in which a decree is passed ex parte against a defendant, he may apply to the Court by which the decree was passed on for an order to set it aside; and if he satisfies the Court that the summons was not duly served, or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the decree as against him upon such terms as to costs, payment into Court or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit. Provided that where the decree is of such a nature that it cannot be set aside as against such defendant only it may be set aside as against all or any of the other defendants also.

Provided further that no Court shall set aside a decree passed ex parte merely on the ground that there has been an irregularity in the service of summons, if it is satisfied that the defendant had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiff s claim."

5. An ex-parte judgment/decree can be set aside under Order 9 Rule 13 when defendant is able to show that the summons was not duly served or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when suit was called on for hearing. In the present case defendants are seeking setting aside of the ex-parte judgment decree on the ground that defendants were not duly served.

6. Undisputedly defendants were not personally served. Defendants are said to be served through publication in the newspaper Nawan Jamana.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that newspaper Nawan Jamana has no wide circulation in the area and plaintiffs could not prove that paper was having any circulation in the area, hence, substitute service on the defendants/petitioners is doubtful, hence, ex-parte judgment and decree must be set aside so that defendants- petitioner may also place their case before the trial Court.

8. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/defendants argued that prior to the publication in the Newspaper Nawan Jamana summons were sent through registered post which were received back by the Court with the endorsement of refusal, hence defendants were served twice, first time by refusal and second time by