IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Order:24.04.2025 Hardev Singh and another .Petitioners Versus Maya Ram ..Respondent CR No.884 of 2024(O&M)

Hardev Singh ...Petitioner Versus Maya Ram and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL Present: Mr. Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Som Nath Saini, Advocate, for respondent no.1.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, JUDGE (Oral)

1. With the consent of the learned counsel representing the parties, two connected revision petitions shall stand disposed of by this common order.

2. CR No.396 of 2022, has been filed to challenge the correctness of the concurrent orders passed by the courts below while dismissing the defendants' application to set aside the ex-parte decree, whereas, in CR No.884 of 2024, the order passed in execution of the ex-parte decree is challenged.

3. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.

4. Sh. Maya Ram filed a suit against Sh. Hardev Singh and his father Sh. Jiwna Ram for grant of decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession and ownership over the property marked as 'GHE', shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the plaint. The suit was listed before the court for the first time on 19.12.2012, and the following order was passed:- “Suit received by entrustment. It be checked and registered. Now notice of the suit as well as stay application be given to the defendants for 07.01.2013 on filing of PF/RC and copies of plaint and applications.”

5. Notices were issued to the defendants through registered post, however, no notice through process server was issued. The notices were received back with the report of refusal. On 07.01.2013, the court passed the following order:--

“Registered summons issued to the respondent received back with the report of refusal. Now in the interest of justice, fresh notice be given to the defendant for 15.01.2013. Affixation be also made on the residential address of the defendant.”

6. It is evident that the court was not satisfied with the report of refusal, hence, it directed issuance of fresh notices to the defendants for

15.01.2013.

7. The process server submitted the following report:-

“Sir, Summons were affixed by visiting the house of Jiwna Ram of Village Sabka in village Sabka on the spot. Signature of Chowkidar was taken as a witness on the spot. Report is submitted. Babu Ram P.S”.

8. On the basis of this report, the trial court proceeded against ex-

parte assuming that the summons have been served. Ultimately, the ex-parte decree was passed against the defendants on 25.09.2013.

9. The defendants filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, which has been dismissed by both the courts below.

10. Order V Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, lays down the procedure when the defendant refuses to accept service of notice or cannot be found. If a defendant or their agent refuses to acknowledge service, or the process server cannot find the defendant after due diligence, a copy of the summons must be affixed to the defendant's residence or business, which reads as under:-

“ Order 5, Rule 1 7- Procedure when defendant refuses to accept service, or cannot be found Where the defendant or his agent or such other person as aforesaid refuses to sign the acknowledgement, or where the serving officer, after using all due and reasonable diligence, cannot find the defendant, who is absent from his residence at the time when service is sought to be effected on him at his residence and there is no likelihood of his being found at the residence within a reasonable time and there is no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, nor any other person on whom service can be made, the serving officer shall affix a copy of the summons on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the defendant ordinarily resides or carr