Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 2487
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.
Rajpal Singh – Petitioner
Versus
Harbans Singh – Respondent
CR-4644 of 2022
Decided On : 16-01-2023
Subject
Civil Law - Procedure
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Service of Process - The necessity for proper service of process is fundamental, and the failure to accurately provide addresses undermines the fairness of proceedings. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a joint owner and coparcener, filed an ex parte suit against his father and sisters, which was subsequently set aside after it was revealed that the respondents had not been properly served due to incorrect address details.
Findings of Court:
The court found no error in setting aside the ex parte decree due to improper service, deeming it just to do so given the circumstances.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the adequacy of service and the implications of incorrect address information on the validity of the ex parte decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of ensuring that all parties are properly served, ruling that the lack of correct information about the defendants' addresses invalidated the earlier proceedings.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Mr. Abhishek Lubana, Advocate; For the Petitioner
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging ex parte judgment. (Para 1) |
| 2. defendant service proper and timely. (Para 2) |
| 3. analysis of service correctness. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 4. defendants' addresses incorrectly stated. (Para 4) |
| 5. petition dismissed. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT
Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral)
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.12.2021 (Annexure P-2) whereby an application filed by the respondents under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was allowed while setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 06.11.2015 (Annexure P-3).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defendants/respondents had been served through proper mode of service inasmuch as the publication was also made in the newspaper Chardikala and therefore, the ex parte decree should not have been set aside especially when the application had been preferred by the defendants after three years.
3. Heard.
4. The petitioner/plaintiff had filed a suit against the respondents/defendants, who include his father and sisters to the effect that he is the joint owner in joint possession being coparcener in the land in question. The suit had been decreed ex parte on 06.11.2015 (Annexure P-3). The address of defendant No.1 had been mentioned as village Mangat, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur but it had come on record that he was not residing at that address. He is stated to be residing at village Argowal, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. The other defendants including sisters of the petitioner/plaintiff were also residing at their matrimonial homes. The petitioner was a close relative of the defendants and therefore, he ought to have furnished their correct addresses. The application for setting aside the ex parte decree was filed in July, 2018 stating therein that when the defendants had learnt about the decree, they had promptly filed the application.
5. In view of the above especially when the defendants had not been served at their addresses as the same had been incorrectly mentioned, I do not find any error in the impugned order setting aside the ex parte decree.
6. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed.
