Back
2025 Supreme(P&H) 61
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
ALKA SARIN, J.
Jindu Ram & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Dharambir @ Dharam & Ors. - Respondents
CR No. 6824 of 2023
Decided On : 09-01-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Akshay Jindal Adv.
Failure to demonstrate adequate service of summons undermines claims of defendant knowledge in ex parte proceedings, affirming the appellate court's decision to set aside the judgment.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order IX Rule 13 - Revision petition against the setting aside of an ex parte judgment and decree - The Trial Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay, which was later set aside by the appellate court, leading to the present challenge. (Paras 2-6)
(B) Service of summons - The court noted that summons were returned unserved and proper service was not established, undermining the assertion of defendant's knowledge of the suit. The plaintiff-petitioner failed to demonstrate due service of notices, leading the court to determine that there was no legal error in the lower court's order. (Paras 4-5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to contest the setting aside of a 1993 ex parte decree, asserting that defendants had knowledge of the suit, but service issues were persistent, with significant confusion over addresses and failure to demonstrate proper notification.
Findings of Court:
The court found the absence of solid proof of service and concluded that the appellate court acted appropriately in setting aside the initial decree.
Issues: The principal issues involved whether the defendants were adequately notified of the proceedings and if any legal errors existed in the lower court's decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored that the lack of adequate service on all defendants led to no legitimate claim of their knowledge of the suit, affirming the appellate decision without identifiable legal missteps.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the revision petition challenges the setting aside of an ex parte judgment. (Para 1) |
| 2. facts leading to the ex parte judgment. (Para 2) |
| 3. contentions regarding service of summons. (Para 3) |
| 4. the contention regarding knowledge and service of notices is discussed. (Para 4) |
| 5. court analysis of service disputes. (Para 5) |
| 6. dismissal of the revision petition. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT :
Alka Sarin, J.
Present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging order dated 03.10.2023 whereby ex parte judgment and decree dated 04.01.1993 was set aside.
2. Briefly the facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-petitioners herein filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction which was decreed ex parte vide judgment and decree dated 04.01.1993. Thereafter, an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed with an application for condonation of delay on 22.03.2016. The Trial Court vide order dated 30.09.2016 dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred, which was allowed and ex parte judgment and decree dated 04.01.1993 was set aside. Aggrieved by the same the present revision petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners would contend that one of the defendant-respondents was duly served and the defendant-respondents throughout knew about the pendency of the suit, however, they chose not to appear.
4. Heard.
5. In the present case the summons initially issued to the defendant-respondents were received back unserved and the plaintiff-petitioners were directed to file fresh correct addresses of the defendant-respondents in the civil suit. On 08.03.1991, 18.07.1991 and 27.09.1991, notices were received back unserved. Thereafter, registered notices were sent at the address i.e. Vandan Ullah, New Delhi-30. The AD receipts were also not received back and thereafter publication was ordered. The publication was done in a newspaper called ‘Daily Mewat’ wherein the address of the defendant-respondents was mentioned as Kadanullah, Delhi-30, which was also not the correct address. There is nothing on the record to show that the publication made in the newspaper ‘Daily Mewat’ had circulation in New Delhi. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners has not been able to convince this Court that the notices were duly served upon the defendant-respondents and they had chosen not to appear despite knowledge. Counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners has not been able to convince this Court that there was any error of law or jurisdiction in passing the impugned order.
6. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
