119 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:28.01.2026 BALHAR SINGH ...Petitioner Vs.

SHAMSHER SINGH AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. ( Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking setting aside of the order dated 29.10.2025 (Annexure P-8) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khadur Sahib, District Tarn Taran, whereby the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte without following the procedure prescribed under Order V Rules 25, 26 and 26-A CPC as well as Chapter 7, Volume IV, Part F of the High Court Rules and Orders. The petition further seeks setting aside of the subsequent order dated 16.12.2025 (Annexure P-10), passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khadur Sahib, District Tarn Taran, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No. 2 under Order IX Rule 7 CPC was disposed of and the petitioner was permitted to join the proceedings at the present stage; however, the petitioner was not allowed to file a written statement or to cross-

examine the witnesses already examined.

2. Briefly stated, the petitioner is one of the defendants in the civil suit. Initially, vide order dated 29.07.2024, the suit against the petitioner and the other defendants was dismissed for non-deposit of munadi fee, as directed by the Court. Subsequently, after some time, the learned Civil Judge suo motu took up the matter again and directed service upon the petitioner and the other defendants through substituted service by way of publication in the newspaper ‘The Tribune’, despite being aware that the petitioner was residing abroad and was not available in India. In such circumstances, as per the provisions of Order V Rules 25, 26, and 26-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, service upon a defendant residing abroad is required to be effected by sending summons at the defendant’s overseas address. However, the learned Trial Court did not follow the prescribed procedure and, after publication of notice in the newspaper, proceeded against the petitioner ex parte vide order dated 29.10.2025. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an application dated 16.12.2025 seeking setting aside of the ex parte proceedings. Vide order dated 16.12.2025, the learned Civil Judge allowed the said application, observing that the Court deemed it fit to grant an opportunity to the applicant/defendant No. 2 to contest the suit. The application was allowed subject to payment of ₹

costs of 2,500/-. However, in the same order, the learned Civil Judge curtailed the petitioner’s right to file a written statement and directed the petitioner to join the proceedings from the stage at which the case was pending, thereby denying the petitioner an effective opportunity to contest the suit on merits.

3. I have counsel for the petitioner at length and gone through the file carefully.

4. This is a case where the petitioner was not personally served, and substituted service was ordered by the learned Civil Judge in violation of the provisions of Order V Rules 25, 26 and 26-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Despite being aware that the petitioner was residing abroad, no effort was made by the Court to effect service at the petitioner’s overseas address. Instead, substituted service by way of publication in a newspaper was ordered, pursuant to which the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte. Furthermore, although the learned Civil Judge allowed the petitioner’s application vide order dated 16.12.2025, granting him an opportunity to contest the suit, the Court, in the latter part of the same order, unjustifiably curtailed the petitioner’s rights by denying him the opportunity to file a written statement and to contest the suit on merits.

5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the r