IMPORTANT POINT
Service through Mundai--Mandatory provisions--It is obligatory for the court to fix the date in the summons/notice to provide sufficient time to the respondents to appear--Mere knowledge to the defendant/respondent of the pendency of the suit/appeal is not sufficient to proceed against him.

Permod Kohli. J.:- This order will dispose of RSA Nos.3922 and 3923 of 2002 as both these appeals arise out of a common impugned judgment and decree and involve common facts and questions of law

2. A suit came to be filed by the appellants/plaintiffs in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jalandhar being Civil Suit No.444/99 for possession of land measuring 11 kanals 12 marIas. A decree for possession came to be passed by the trial court on 16.2.2001. Madan Lal, defendant no. 1 in the suit filed an appeal being RCA No.76/2001 and some of the other defendants filed a separate appeal being RCA No.101/2001 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. The appellants herein were arrayed as respondents no.1 to 3 in these appeals. The Lower Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 21.5.2002 accepted the appeals and dismissed the suit filed by the appellants herein. Though the judgment and decree impugned has been challenged on various grounds. However, the principal contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the lower appellate court has set aside the judgment of the trial court and allowed the appeals, without even hearing the appellants who are respondents in the appeals. It has been contended that no notice of the appeals was ever served upon the appellants and the appeals came to be decided without hearing the appellants.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, contended that the appellants had the knowledge of the pendency of the appeals. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, after passing of the decree by the trial court, an execution petition was filed and during the pendency of the execution, copy of the order of the appellate court granting stay of the judgment was produced whereupon the execution petition was withdrawn. It is accordingly submitted that since the appellants herein who are respondents in the lower appellate court had the knowledge of the pendency of the appeal, they intentionally evaded the appearance and thus, they cannot be permitted to contend that they were not heard in the appeals. Based upon above submissions, the record of the trial court as also the execution petition was summoned. From the Execution Petition No.161 of 2001 it appears that during the pendency of the execution, copy of an order dated 20.4.2001 passed in RCA No.76 of 2001 was produced whereupon it appears that Madan Lal filed an appeal in which record of the lower court was summoned and operation of the impugned judgment and decree was stayed.

4. I have perused the record of RCA Nos.76 and 101 of 2001. From the record of RCA No.76/2001, it appears that appeal was registered on 19.2.2001 and posted on 20A.2001 for consideration of the stay matter. On 20A.2001, appeal was admitted and notice of the appeal as well as stay application was directed to be issued to the respondents on filing of process fee etc. and, record of the lower court was also summoned. The lower appellate court also stayed the operation of the judgment and decree till further orders. However, summons could not be issued for want of process fee as is evident from the order dated 31.5.2001. The case was adjourned to 13.8.2001 with a direction to issue fresh notice to respondents. On 13.8.2001 some of the respondents were served, except the appellants herein. It is specifically recorded that these respondents are not served and the counsel requested for adjournment for filing application for effecting service on respondents/appellants herein through Munadi. The case was adjourned for filing application on 20.8.2001. However, no such application was filed till 20.8.2001 and case was adjourned to 25.8.2001 for filing the application. The application was filed on the next date of hearing and the court directed the service on the respondents/appellants herein through Munadi. The case was adjourned to 20.9.2001 where it is recorded that remaining respondents were served through Munadi, but they were not