Technical noncompliance with the report requirements for service of summons under Order 9 Rule 2 CPC led to the dismissal of the suit against defendant No.2.

JUDGMENT :

Raj Mohan Singh, J.

1. Vide this common order, CR No.3548 of 2018 titled Sukhwant Kaur and others Vs. Harpal Singh and others, CR No.3014 of 2019 titled Sukhwant Kaur and others Vs. Harpal Singh and others and CR No.3017 of 2019 titled Sukhwant Kaur and others Vs. Harpal Singh and others are being disposed of. Common facts are being noticed.

2. In CR No.3548 of 2018, petitioners have assailed the order dated 11.01.2018 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat, vide which suit of plaintiffs/petitioners was dismissed against defendant No.2 under Order 9 Rule 2 CPC.

3. In CR Nos.3014 and 3017 of 2019, petitioners have laid challenge to the order dated 25.02.2019 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat vide which application for stay of proceedings was dismissed.

4. Three Civil Suits No.54 of 2013, 622 of 2013 and 2859 of 2013 (on transfer became RRT No.96 of 2016) are pending before the trial Court. Civil Suits No.54 and 622 of 2013 are fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments. Civil Suit No.2859 of 2013 is at the initial stage. The validity of General Power of Attorney No.69/4 dated 24.04.1986 is the subject matter of all the aforesaid suits. In Civil Suit No.2859 of 2013 (RRT No.96 of 2016) besides aforesaid General Power of Attorney No.69/4 dated 24.04.1986, General Power of Attorney No.223/4 dated 06.07.2000 executed by Harjinder Kaur in favour of respondent No.1 and consequent sale deed No.7463 dated 05.02.2001 executed by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2 (Smt. Ravi Kanta) are also challenged.

5. Petitioners/Plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of house No.291/3 situated in Old Municipality, Panipat on the ground that the house was shown in the name of Harjinder Kaur wife of late Sh. Kartar Singh mother of the plaintiff/petitioners, but the same was purchased from joint funds of joint family and Harjinder Kaur was not the absolute owner, rather the same was owned by joint family including the plaintiffs. Smt. Harjinder Kaur died on 27.05.2002, leaving behind the plaintiffs/petitioners as well as defendant No.1 as legal heirs, who have succeeded her estate including the house in question. Plaintiffs have inherited 4/5th share in the house in question being natural heirs of late Smt. Harjinder Kaur. They came to know in the month of August 2010 that defendant/respondent No.1 has transferred the house by way of sale deed No.7463 dated 05.02.2001 for consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of defendant/respondent No.2 on the basis of alleged General Power of Attorney No.223/4 dated 06.07.2000. Earlier there was General Power of Attorney No.69/4 dated 24.04.1986. Defendant/respondent No.1 had already sold respective shares of the plaintiffs and late Smt. Harjinder Kaur vide different sale deeds. Both the General Power of Attorneys and the sale deed have been assailed in the suit, seeking decree for possession regarding 4/5th share in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of house, decree for partition in respect of 4/5th share by making a partition by metes and bounds, declaring the General Power of Attorneys to be null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs regarding their shares in the suit house and for granting decree for permanent injunction, restraining defendant No.2 from alienating the suit property in any manner.

6. Respondent No.2 Smt. Ravi Kanta wife of Ashok Kumar was impleaded on the address of 325/3, Insar Chowk, Panipat. The aforesaid address was available in the document under challenge. Defendant No.2 could not be served despite making every positive endeavour by the petitioners. Firstly, the process was issued in India on the given address and thereafter, on the address of U.S. Though number of opportunities have been availed by the petitioners including process under Order 5 Rule 25 CPC, but ultimately the trial Court has passed the order dated 11.01.2018, dismissing