The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to record due satisfaction before resorting to substituted service and the legal implications of not submitting correct addresses of the defendants.

JUDGMENT

Raj Mohan Singh, J. - Petitioners have assailed the order dated 21.07.2008 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pathankot, whereby the application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 11.11.1994 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pathankot was dismissed and for setting aside the order dated 05.10.2013 passed by Additional District Judge, Pathankot whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 21.07.2008 was also dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court.

2. A civil suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 16.01.1986 was filed by Devinder Mehta against six persons namely Ashwani Kumar, Arun Kumar, Mrs. Partap Chand, Sukanya, Rakesh Kumar (minor) and Shakuntala Devi on 17.07.1989. The plaint of the suit was amended. Defendants No.7 and 8 were added i.e. Archana Mahajan wife of Vinod Kumar, resident of Bhadroya, Pathankot and Anil Kumar son of Gobind Ram, resident of Bhadroya, Pathankot. The added defendants were impleaded on the basis of sale deed vide which the land in question was purchased by them. In the sale deed of added defendants, the land was shown to be situated in Bhadroya, Tehsil Pathankot and address of defendants No.7 and 8 was shown to be Ishwar Nagar, Pathankot. The added defendants were impleaded on the address of village Bhadroya, where the land was situated.

3. When the process was issued to the added defendants, following order was passed on 04.03.1992:-

"PF/RC & AD not filed. Last chance given for filing PF/RC & AD. Put to 06.03.1992."

Thereafter, PF was filed, but RC and AD were not filed and Sub Judge, Ist Class passed the order dated 06.03.1992 to the following effect:-

"PF filed. However, RC and AD not filed. Now, summons to defendants No.7 and 8 be issued in ordinary way for 18.04.1992 and PF/RC if any be filed within 3 days."

Summons of the added defendants No.7 and 8 were received back with the report that their correct addresses are required for effecting service. On 18.04.1992, following order was passed by the trial Court:-

"RC containing summons of defendants No.7 and 8 received with the report that their correct address is required for service. Like report is received regarding remaining defendants sent through ordinary xxxx (not legible). Correct addresses of all the defendants be filed along with RC/AD for 25.04.1992."

4. Thereafter, on 25.04.1992, PF/RC & AD filed. Summons to defendants were issued for 30.05.1992. On 30.05.1992, registered covers containing summons of defendants No.7 and 8 were received with the report that they are not residing on the given addresses. Correct addresses of defendants No.7 and 8 were required to be filed on 06.06.1992. Thereafter, correct addresses were not filed and application under Order 5, Rule 20 CPC was filed by the plaintiff. Trial Court passed the order dated 06.06.1992 on the said application to the following effect:-

"An application under Order 5, Rule 20 CPC filed for effecting substituted service. The application is supported by an affidavit. In the application and affidavit, it is alleged that last known address of defendants No.7 and 8 is the one which is given earlier. Earlier regd. covers to defendants No.7 and 8 were received with report that correct addresses be given. So service of defendant No.7 and 8 not possible in ordinary way. Defendants No.7 and 8 therefore required to be served through Daily Nawan Zamana, Jalandhar for 25.07.1992. Publication charges and PF within 3 days."

In this way, publication was made and the petitioners were proceeded against ex parte.

5. Application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC was filed by the petitioners to which no reply was filed by the decree holder as the suit was decreed ex parte vide judgment and decree dated 11.11.1994 passed by the Civil court. Petitioners remained unsuccessful even in appeal filed before the Lower Appellate Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon Smruti Pahariya vs. Sanjay Pahariya,