The main legal point established is that the service of summons under the Civil Procedure Code, particularly under Order 5 Rule 15 and Order 5 Rule 19, is crucial in determining the validity of proceedings and the grounds for setting aside ex parte orders.

R.L. Anand, J. - Petitioners Kamal Kant and Murari, defendants No. 9 and 11 respectively, have filed the present revision and it has been directed against the order dated 14.10.2000 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sirsa, who declined their application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC.

2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner :-

Jain Mandir Parath Nath and 11 others filed a suit for possession against Smt. Sita Devi and 11 others including the present two petitioners Kamal Kant and Murari on the basis of the title of land measuring 111 kanals comprised in various khasra numbers as mentioned in the jamabandi for the year 1987-88, situated at village Ellenabad, District Sirsa on the plea that all the defendants are in unauthorised possession of the suit land. They also made a prayer for mandatory injunction directing all the defendants to deposit a sum of Rs. 40,000/- for each crop of way of mesne profits.

3. Notice of the suit was given to the defendants. Earlier Raju, who was also a co-defendant with Kamal Kant and Murari, received the notice on behalf of these two defendants. The service was witnessed by Puran Chand son of Devi Lal. The petitioners did not appear on 15.4.1996, the date fixed in the trial Court. By way of abundant caution the trial Court ordered that these defendants be served by way of Munadi and Munadi was also effected by the process server through the agency of Karam Chand Chowkidar of village Ellenabad. The report of Munadi was attested by Kailash Chand and Karam Chand Chowkidar. On the basis of this Munadi report, the defendants did not appear even on 28.5.1996 and they were proceeded against ex parte. The application was earlier moved under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC which was not legally maintainable because no decree was passed. Later on it was amended under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC.

4. Be that as it may, the point for determination in this case is whether the defendants were duly served or not. The learned trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioners mainly for the reasons given in para Nos. 6 to 12 of the impugned order, which read as follows :-

"6. The perusal of the summons dated 2.3.1996 issued for 15.4.1996 shows that the same was received by Raju, defendant No. 10, on behalf of Kamal Kant and Murari Lal applicants. The aforesaid summons is duly served by the process server as well as witnessed by Puran Chand son of Devi Lal, r/o Ellenabad. When the applicants/defendants did not appear on 15.4.96, the then ld. Addl. Civil Judge, vide order dated 15.4.96 ordered the service of applicants/defendants through Munadi, on which date defendant No. 10 who received the summons of applicants also, proceeded against ex parte as he did not appear despite his service. Till date, there is no affidavit or other record on the file to show that he did not receive the summons on behalf of his brothers Kamal Kant and Murari Lal defendants No. 9 and 11 respectively. No denial of Raju regarding the appending of his signatures on the summons dated 15.4.1996 till date. As per Order 5 Rule 15 CPC "Where in any suit the defendant is absent from his residence at the time when the service of summons is sought to be effected on him at his residence and there is no likelihood of his being found at the residence within a reasonable time and he has no agent empowered to accept service of the summons of his behalf, service may be made on any adult member of the family, whether male or female, who is residing with him."

Hence the receipt of summons on behalf of applicants by Raju is a complete service qua the applicants also. However, the then Presiding Officer ordered the service of the remaining defendants including the applicant through Munadi for 28.5.96. The Munadi was also received back duly served effected. The perusal of munadi also shows that it was effected by the process server through the agency of Karan Chand Chowkidar of the village Ellenabad. This munadi is again attested by one Kailash Chand