IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

242 Date of decision : 12.11.2025 Satnam Singh deceased through his LRs ...... Appellant versus Nachhattar Singh and another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. D.S. Malwai, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Mandeep Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)

1 Challenge is to the order dated 16.03.2015 passed by Additional District Judge Sri Mukstar Sahib whereby application filed by the appellant under Order XLI Rule 21 read with Order IX Rule 13 read with section 151 CPC stands rejected.

2. The appeal was preferred by the respondent-Nachhattar Singh impleading legal representatives of Satnam Singh-defendant No.1. The memo of parties reads as under:

“Nachhattar Singh son of Harbans Singh son of Dalel Singh resident of village Abul Khurana, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

Appellant Versus

1. Satnam Singh (deceased through his L.Rs:-

A) Mehma Singh son of Satnam Singh son of Balwant Singh B) Jaspal Kaur daughter of Satnam Singh son of Balwant Singh (wife of Lachhman Singh son of Hari Singh) resident of Rameana.

C) Kiranjit Kaur daughter of Satnam Singh son of Balwant Singh (wife of Gurjit Singh son of Bhag Singh) resident of village Sukhna Ablu, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, 2. Gurcharan Singh son of Balwant Singh son of Dalel Singh resident of village Abul Khurana, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

Respondents”

3. From the record, it is discernible that notices were issued to the applicants (respondents in the appeal) for 18.07.2000. The service report reads as under-

“No.39 dt 22.4.2k Sh. Satnam Singh PS To comply before 11-5-2K Sd/- NN Xxx Sd/- Mehma Singh son of Satnam Singh Sir, It is submitted that after visiting the spot I enquired about Japal Kaur and Kiranjit Kaur, but they are residing outside. Mehma Singh has been got served personally by giving him copy of summon and copy of the suit. Sh. Gurcharan Singh @ Gurbachan Singh has flatly refused from service. Sd/- Satnam Singh 23.4.2000.

Note: in the summons writing be made legible.

Sd/- Satnam Singh. Not residing B& C In person 1A Refusal No.2 Naib Najar ACJ SD Civil (Malout) 25.4.2000 Note: Affidavit of Satnam Singh dt. 25.4.2000”

4. On the basis of the aforesaid report tendered by the process server, Appellate Court ordered service of the respondent in appeal by way of proclamation. Notices were published in the Daily Newspaper Chardi Kala, Patiala dated 18.07.2000. The LRs of Satnam Singh were proceeded against ex-parte. The said order finally led to passing of ex- parte judgment and decree dated 10.11.2001. It is only in June 2012 that the decree holder filed execution. Thereafter, present application was moved on 01.05.2013, wherein the applicant/appellants imparted the knowledge to one Balkar Singh s/o Mohinder Singh pleading as under:-

“That the applicants/respondents came to know about the judgment & decree from one Gurpinder Singh s/o Kultar Singh and Balkar Singh son of Mohinder Singh residents of Village Ablu Khurana a 10 days back, when they informed the applicants/respondents that they have heard from Nachhattar Singh that there is decree for possession in his favour, passed by the Ld. Addl. District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib and then the applicants/respondents came to know about the judgment & decree dated 10.11.2001.”

5. The application has been dismissed by the Appellate Court observing as under:-

“That the Ld. Court has not satisfied about the fact that the service of these respondents would not be effected by way of personal service, nor there is any such fact on the file to show that there was sufficient reason for the appellate court to summon these respondents by way of substituted service. Kiranjit Kaur and Jaspal Kaur are household ladies, they never read the newspaper. Gurbachan Singh also a rustic village and never read out the newspaper. Moreover, Chardi Kala has no circulation in Village Ablu Khurana, Rameana and Village Sukhna Ablu.

8. That due to the illegal order