The main legal point established is that when suing the State Government, the authority to be named as defendant should be the relevant department related to the case, and the delay in filing an application to set aside ex parte proceedings could result in the defendant being burdened with costs.

1. The plaintiff (respondent) filed the suit for forma pauperis for recovery of certain amount. The State of Punjab was sued through the Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab. When summonses were issued for December 10, 1986, and the same were served on the Chief Secretary, a letter was written to the Court dated November 18, 1986, that since the detailed particulars of the case have not been made available, no written statement could be filed. Moreover, the case relates to the Health Department and unless the particulars are made available, the Health Department could not be directed to file the written statement. In spite of the said letter dated November 18, 1986, the Court proceeded ex parte against the State of Punjab on December 10, 1986. However, meanwhile the suit was being contested by defendant No. 2. When an application was filed for setting aside the ex parte proceedings on behalf of the State of Punjab, the trial Court dismissed the same on the ground that under S.79, Civil P.C., the State of Punjab is to be sued through the Chief Secretary and consequently, dismissed the application vide impugned order dated May 12, 1988.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court has acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. Since the copy of the plaint was never given along with summons as required under O.5, R.2, C.P.C., the State of Punjab could not be proceeded ex parte. Moreover; the case related to the Health Department and, therefore, the State of Punjab should have been sued through the Secretary, Health Department and not through the Chief Secretary.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent, submitted that already notice under S.80, Civil P.C. was given to the State Government and, therefore, they were made aware of the particulars much earlier. It was for the State Government to come and plead on that basis. Moreover, argued the learned counsel, the application was filed after more than 11/2 years and was, thus, belated one.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the whole approach of the trial Court was wrong and illegal. It is not a case where the State of Punjab has been sleeping over the matter. Immediately on the receipt of the summons for December 10, 1986, letter dated November 18, 1986, was written to the Court for supplying the necessary particulars. Since the case related to the Health Department, no such particulars were ever furnished by the plaintiff in reply thereto.

5. Apart from that, Sec. 79, CPC, does not provide that the State of Punjab is to be sued through the Chief Secretary. It only provides that in a suit against the State Government, the authority to be named as defendant will be the State. Admittedly, the suit related to the Health Department and, therefore, the State of Punjab should have been served through the Health Secretary. In these circumstances, the ex parte proceedings were liable to be set aside.

6. As regards the delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte order, the defendant could be burdened with costs. Consequently, this petition succeeds; the impugned order is set aside and the application under O.9, R.7, Civil P.C., for setting aside the ex parte proceedings is allowed on payment of Rs. 200.00 as costs.

7. Since at the time of motion hearing further proceedings were stayed in the trial Court, parties are directed to appear on September 12, 1989, on which date the costs will be paid and the written statement will be filed.

8. Since the suit was filed in January, 1986, in order to expedite the hearing of the same, it is directed that the parties will lead their evidence at their own responsibility through dasti summons may be given, if so desired, as contemplated under Order, 16, Rule 7-A, Civil Procedure Code.