Service of summons through publication must be proper and the notice published must convey a clear sense of the proceedings.

Prem Chand Jain, J.

1. Harbhajan Singh has filed this revision against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge IInd Class, Ludhiana, dated September 19, 1979, by which his application for the setting aside of the ex-parte ejectment order dated December 1, 1978, was rejected.

2. The petitioner had filed an application for the setting aside of the ex-parte ejectment order on the ground that he was never served personally; that he had no knowledge about the proceeding pending in the Court until December 1, 1978 ; that on the said date he had gone to the Court to purchase the stamp paper ; that when he was passing in front of the Court a case was loudly called out by the peon of the Court which raised a suspicion in his mind ; that on December 2, 1978, on making inquiry it came to his knowledge that the ejectment order had been passed and that on coming the know of the same he filed an application for the setting aside of the order.

3. Notice of the application was given to the respondent who contested the claim of the petitioner. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed.

"1. Whether there is a sufficient cause for setting aside the ex-parte order of ejectment against Harbhajan Singh ?

2. Whether the application for setting aside an ex-parte order is barred by limitation ?

3. Relief.

The trial Court decided Issue No. 1 against the petitioner. Issue No. 2 was not decided as the same was not pressed. In view of the finding on Issue No. 1 the application was dismissed with costs.

4 The admitted facts of the case are as follows : - The ejectment application was filed against the petitioner and two others on the grounds of non-payment of rent and sub-letting, on March 21, 1978. After registering the application, the Rent Controller ordered issuance of notices to the respondents in the Rent Application for April 1, 1978. As notices were not received, the learned Rent Controller on April 1, 1978, ordered the issuance of the notices again for April 20, 1978. As the respondents were not served, issuance of notices in the ordinary way as well as under registered cover was ordered for May 10, 1978. The registered covers and the summons were received back with the remark that the premises were closed, with the result that on that very day the learned Rent Controller ordered the effecting of service on the respondents through proclamation by publication in `Daily Tarjman for May 31, 1978. As the proclamation was not issued for May 31, 1978, the same was ordered to be issued for August 21, 1978, when the case came up on August 21, 1978, the proceedings were ordered to be taken ex-parte against the respondents on the ground that they had been duly served through publication.

5. It further transpires that after the recording of the ex-parte evidence of the petitioner in the Rent Application on September 8, 1978, the case was fixed for consideration on September 16, 1978. On that date, respondent No. 2 put in appearance and made an application for setting aside of the ex-parte proceedings. Notice of this application was given to the petitioner who was asked to file reply and the case was adjourned to September 23, 1978. When the case came up on September 26, 1978, the petitioner made a statement that she had no objection to the setting aside of the ex-parte proceedings against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the rent application. In view of this statement, the ex-parte proceedings were set aside and the case was adjourned to October 5, 1978, for the filing of the written statement. The written statement was filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and issues were framed on October 5, 1978. It appears that the landlord-petitioner (now respondent) did not wish to proceed against respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and got his petition dismissed as withdrawn quasi them on November 29, 1978. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to December 1, 1978, on which date the ex-parte order was passed against the present petitioner.