Compliance with procedural requirements, including the issuance of summons in accordance with the provisions of Order 5 of the CPC, is essential for rendering a valid judgment.

JUDGMENT :

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.

This writ petition itself has got a bundle of intermingled facts, which has been sought to be attracted by the learned counsel for the parties, in order to justify their respective knowledge of the proceedings of Suit No. 57 of 2014, Santosh Chandra Vs. Sunder Lal and others, being the proceedings which was instituted under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, for partition of the holding in relation to the property, which was more appropriately described therein at the foot of the plaint. The Suit was instituted on 26.05.2014.

2. It’s not in controversy between the parties, that the proceedings under Section U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act are governed by the provisions as contained under Section 341 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, which had in its applicability the provisions as contained under the Code of Civil Procedure, to be applied over all proceedings which are held under the Act, which is a special statute in itself. If that be so, then quite obviously, upon the institution of any of the proceedings for deciding a material right in relation to the parties to the suit, there has had to be a mandatory compliance of the provisions contained under Order 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, so that the rival parities, who may be likely to be affected by any decree to be rendered in a suit preferred by the plaintiff, may have an ample of opportunity to contest the proceedings by filing a written statement under Order 8. Order 5 which in itself is a self contained provision which uses the word “issue and service of summons”.

3. There are two prime ingredients which are required to satisfied; one, that there has to be an “issue” of summons by the Court, before whom the proceedings are instituted and thereafter, only when the first part is satisfied, then the Court has an occasion to observe that ever the “service” of summons were sufficient, which could have entailed or enabled the Court to proceed ex parte for deciding the rights. The issue would be as to whether at all, the present petitioner had the knowledge of the aforesaid Suit No. 57 of 2014 or not.

4. What is peculiar in this case is that the Suit which was instituted on 26.05.2014 and upon its institution and the way it has been interpreted by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, is that when the Court had first passed an order dated 26.05.2014, which reads as under:-

**is'kdkj

d`- fu;ekuqlkj okn ntZ dj i=koyh fnukad 19-06-2014 dks izLrqr djsaA**

The Court has observed to record the case and fixed it on 19.06.2014. No notices or summons were issued by this order of 19.06.2014 to the opposite parties.

5. The issue of debate as per the wisdom of this Court would be, as to whether this order would be an order under the first part of Order 5 which is to be determined, as to whether it was an order of issuance of notice which has been otherwise interpreted by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, that once the Court has entertained the proceedings and has fixed 19.06.2014, it would automatically be treated as to be an order of issuance of notice.

6. With all due reverence at my command, I am not in agreement with the argument as extended by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, for the reason being that Order 5 Rule 1 has been explicit in itself. It contains two parts to it; one, sub clause (1) of Rule 1 of Order 5 deals with the “institution of the proceedings”. The Institution of the proceedings is not to be misunderstood to be an issuance of notice as provided under Clause (2) of Rule 1 of Order 5, as clause (2) of Rule 1 of Order 5, uses the word “summons has been issued” and this connotation made under sub clause (2) of Rule 1 Order 5 has had to be read in consonance to the persons against whom the suit has been instituted as referred in sub-clause (1) of Rule 1 Order 5. Relevant provision of Order 5 Rule 1 of CPC is extracted hereunder:-

“Summons(1) When a suit has been duly instituted, a summons may issued to the defendant to app