HARINDER SINGH SIDHU
Karnail Singh – Appellant
Versus
Malkiat Singh – Respondent
Mr. Harinder Singh Sidhu, J.:- This petition has been filed impugning the order of the Ld.Civil Judge (Junior Division), Moga dated 29.4.2017, whereby, the application of the petitioner under Order 5 Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure for summoning the respondent by way of substituted service has been dismissed.
2. The petitioner filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 15.9.2007. The suit was contested by the respondent through his son Gursewak Singh as his general attorney. The respondent filed written statement refuting the claim of the petitioner. However, he did not lead any evidence. The suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 14.9.2015. After the expiry of the period of limitation for filing appeal, the petitioner filed execution application, in which notice was issued to the respondent for 16.2.2017. However, he could not be served and the process server reported that the respondent had gone abroad. Thereafter, the Ld. Executing Court vide order dated 16.02.2017 directed that notice be issued to the respondent under Order 5 Rule 25 CPC, which required the summons to be addressed to the respondent at the pl
Kasi Visvanathan Chetty & Anr. v. Muthu K.R. Aranachellam Chetty
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.