SAO No.61 of 2023(O&M)

-1-

2024:PHHC:005416

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

SAO No.61 of 2023(O&M)

Date of Order:15.01.2024

Daljit Singh (since deceased) through his LRs

.Appellant

Versus

Mohinder Singh and others

..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present:

Dr. Dayal Partap Singh Randhawa, Advocate

for the appellant.

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

NARESH KUMAR

2024.01.19 15:40

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

SAO No.61 of 2023(O&M)

-2-

2024:PHHC:005416

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

NARESH KUMAR

2024.01.19 15:40

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

SAO No.61 of 2023(O&M)

-3-

2024:PHHC:005416

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