IMPORTANT POINT
Proper service of summons is essential for the validity of court proceedings; failure to comply with service requirements can lead to the setting aside of ex-parte decrees.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. The first appellate court has set aside the ex-parte decree and ordered decision of the suit afresh. The correctness of the aforesaid order has been challenged in this revision petition.

2. It has been found that the defendants(respondents herein) were not properly served with the notices of the suit. On appreciation of the record, the first appellate court has recorded the following findings:-

“16. After giving anxious thoughts to the rival contentions and going through the record of the case, this Court is of the considered view that findings of the learned trial court on issues no.1 and 3 cannot sustain. Perusal of the record of the main case shows that after institution of the suit, the learned trial Court passed the order dated 27.08.2011 for service of the defendants through ordinary process and registered post for 28.10.2011. However, Ahlmad failed to issue the summons for 28.10.2011 and 23.01.2012. On 22.02.2012, Shri Satinder Pal Singh, Advocate appeared on behalf of defendants no.1,2, 4 to 17. However, the order is silent with regard to issuance of any summons for the said date to the remaining defendants. Summons for the next date i.e. 10.04.2012 could not be issued due to non filing of the copy of the plaint. Thereafter, the Ahlmad did no issue the summons for 06.06.2012 and 25.08.2012. The summons issued for 05.10.2012 to the appellants were received back with the report that none of them could be found at the house despite repeated visits. On the basis of said report, the trial court recorded its satisfaction that defendants cannot be served through ordinary process and ordered their service through munadi and affixation. The summons for service of the appellants /defendants through munadi could not be issued for 22.11.2012, 18.01.2013, 02.03.2013 and 27.04.2013 due to non deposit of munadi charges. Even thereafter summons could not be issued for many a dates due to non deposit of munadi charges. Summons issued to them for 18.11.2013 were received back unserved and ultimately report was received on the summons for 05.12.2013 that munadi has been effected. The said report has been attested by witness Raghbir Singh and same purports to bear the thumb impression of Bachan Singh chowkidar in token of having received the munadi fee for effecting the munadi.

17. From the perusal of the zimni orders recorded in the main suit it is made out that on most of the dates process had not been issued by the Ahlmad. When the summons issued against defendants/ appellants for the first time for 05.10.2012 were received back unserved, the trial court ordered their service through munadi. This Court is of the view that first of all court is required to make efforts for getting effected the personal service of the defendants. However, in this case the trial court has failed to make proper efforts for getting effected the personal service of the defendants. The plaintiffs did not comply with the orders of the court to file registered cover and thereafter they failed to file copies of the plaint on a number of dates. So far as report on the summons issued for 05.10.2012 is concerned, the said report seems to be manipulated one. It is difficult to accept that Process Server could not find any of the defendants at the house. The said report has not been attested by any witness. In the opinion of this Court, trial court should not have ordered the substituted service of the defendants on the basis of such like report particularly when the summons had not been issued to the defendants earlier on any occasion. Therefore, this Court is of the view that order regarding taking recourse to substituted service itself has not got sanction of law. No doubt, there is report regarding service of the appellants/ defendants through munadi. As per said report, munadi was effected with beat of drum and copy of the summons was affixed on the house of the defendants. There is no mention of the affixation of the copy of the pla