Gurdarshan Singh v. Pal Singh and Another

IN T

Gurdarshan Sing

Pal Singh and A

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr

Ms MANDEEP PA

1.

Thi under Article 2

11.09.2019 pas Gurdaspur, whe IX Rule 13 read decree dated 28 Civil Appeal No by the learned preferred by the Brief Facts

2.

The issued to the p received back w recording satisfa

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

CR

Re

Pro gh

VERSUS Another

N'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDE r. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for th s. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate for -.- ANNU J. is order shall dispose of the pr 227 of the Constitution of In ssed by the learned Additiona ereby the application filed by th d with Section 151 CPC for setti .08.2015 was dismissed, and jud o. 72/2022, titled as "Gurdarshan d Additional District Judge, G e petitioner/defendant. e plaintiffs instituted a civil su petitioner/defendant for 17.05.2 with a report of "incomplete addr action that the defendant could n

JAB AND HARYANA ARH R-3485-2025 (O&M) served on:-11.09.2025 onounced on:- 15.09.2025

....Petitioner ....Respondents EEP PANNU he petitioner. r the respondents. resent Civil Revision Petition fi ndia, challenging the order da al Civil Judge (Senior Divisio he petitioner/defendant under Or ing aside the ex parte judgment a dgment dated 27.02.2025 passed n Singh Vs. Pal Singh and Anoth Gurdaspur, dismissing the app uit on 04.04.2014. Summons w 2014. The Registered Cover w dress." The learned trial Court, a not be served in the ordinary cou

- iled ated on), rder and d in her" peal were was after rse,

ordered substitu Newspaper), wh appear, was proc

3.

The IX Rule 13 CPC address, that the his locality, and execution proce the ex parte judg

4.

The defendant was deliberately cho publication was defendant was in

5.

Fro the trial Court:

¶1jud

2.

¶3han

4.

6.

In AW-1 and there uted service through publication hich was effected on 25.07.201 ceeded against ex parte and the s e petitioner/defendant thereafter C, pleading that he was never s e newspaper in which publicatio d that he remained unaware of the eedings fixed for 5.11.2016. He a gment and decree. e respondents/plaintiffs conteste duly served, was fully aware ose not to appear. They emphas s made had wide circulation, an ntentional and willful. om the pleadings of the parties, th Whether there are sufficient dgment and decree as prayed for? Whether the application is no Whether the applicant has n nds? OPR Relief. support of his application, th eafter, closed his evidence.

n in the daily "Ashiana" (a De

¶14The defendant having failed suit was decreed on 28.08.2015. r filed an application under Or served with summons at his act on was made had no circulation e suit until he received summon accordingly prayed for setting as ed the application, asserting that of the pendency of the suit, a sized that the newspaper in wh nd that the non-appearance of he following issues were framed t grounds to set aside the ex pa ? OPA ot maintainable? OPR not come to the Court with cl he petitioner examined himself

- elhi d to rder tual n in s in side and hich d by arte ean

7.

On RW-1, also clos Findings of the

8.

Aft defendant had b aside the ex p

11.09.2019.

9.

Ag 72/2022. The le vide judgment d plea of non-serv examination tha recall the year. T the same as th observed that zi the judgment th and concluded t ordering substitu

10.

Fee revision petition

11.

Up Submissions of

12.

Lea Courts below er It is submitted n the other hand, Pal Singh, resp sed his evidence. e Courts Below ter considering the evidence, th been validly served and that ther parte judgment. The applicatio grieved by the said order, the earned Additional District Judge dated 27.02.2025. The learned vice was not proved, and that th at he had received summons on The Court also noticed that the a he address where the defendan mni orders were not proved by t he appellate Court did consider c that the learned trial Court had r uted service. eling aggrieved, the petitioner/d n. on notice, respondents/plaintiff a f learned counsel for the partie arned counsel for the petitioner/ rred in holding that he was awar that the alleged admission reg

pondent/plaintiff, after appering he learned trial Court held that re were no sufficient grounds to on was accordingly dismissed petitioner filed Civil Appeal N e, Gurdaspur, dismissed the app Appellate Court observed that he defendant had admitted in cro n 3rd October, though he could address on the registered cover w nt continued to reside. Though the defendant, in the later portion certified copies of the zimni ord rightly recorded satisfaction bef defendant has filed the present c appeared and contested the same s /defendant has argued that both re of the pendency of the civil s garding receipt of summons on

- g as set on No. peal oss-not was h it n of ders fore civil e. suit. 3rd

October pertains lower Courts w zimni orders req been placed on and Rachna Ma to contend that before ordering

13.

Con supported the im address where s proceedings, tha by the trial Cour Findings of this

14.

Hav of the record, th made out.

15.

It i admission of th admittedly perta if this erroneous the defendant w his correct addr Court, upon re which was duly s not to the original suit, but to e wrongly relied upon this admissi quired no proof as they form par Subedar Amar Singh v. Avtar ahajan & another v. Devinder K mandatory procedure under Ord substituted service. nversely, learned counsel fo mpugned orders, arguing that the summons were issued in the civ at substituted service was duly rt, and that the impugned orders s Court ving heard learned counsel for b his Court is of the considered vie is correct that the learned Appe he petitioner about receipt of su ained to execution proceedings a s finding is ignored, there is amp was validly served in the civil suit ress, which he admits continues ecording satisfaction, ordered s effected.

execution proceedings, and that ion. It is further submitted that rt of the Court record. Reliance Singh, 2003 (3) RCR (Civil) 5 Kumar Mehta, 2018 (4) PLR 3 der V CPC was not complied w or the respondents/plaintiffs e defendant resides at the very sa vil suit as well as in the execut effected after satisfaction record suffer from no illegality. both sides and upon careful peru w that no ground for interferenc ellate Court wrongly relied on ummons dated 3rd October, wh and not the original civil suit. Ev ple evidence on record to show t t. The Registered Cover was sen to be his present address. The t substituted service by publicati

- has 580, 356, with has ame tion ded usal e is hich ven that nt to trial ion,

16.

Sim the zimni orders judgment it spec on record and, a satisfaction that substituted servi of the learned A service was duly

17.

As said judgment h are exhausted, s in Rachna Mah had not record address was not Here, the learne was returned, a used was the ve was later serve petitioner are in Conclusion

18.

Bot concurrently he proceedings. Th perversity or Constitution of I milarly, though the learned App s had not been proved by the d cifically discussed the certified c after examining the same, concu t the defendant could not be serv ice under Order V Rule 20 CPC Appellate Court, read as a who y effected. regards the reliance on Subeda holds that unless the steps under substituted service under Rule 2 hajan's case (supra), the Court ed satisfaction before ordering t properly furnished. The presen ed trial Court did record its sat and substituted service was ord ery same at which the defendan ed in execution. Therefore, th applicable to the present case. th the learned trial Court and ld that the petitioner was duly heir findings are based on materi illegality warranting interfere India.

pellate Court initially observed t defendant, in the later portion of copies of the zimni orders produ urred with the learned trial Cou ved in the ordinary course and t C was justified. Thus, the reason ole, fully supports the finding t ar Amar Singh's case (supra), Order V Rules 12, 15 and 17 C 20 cannot be resorted to. Simila t found that the learned trial Co g substituted service and that nt case is distinguishable on fa tisfaction after the registered co dered and carried out. The addr nt continues to reside and where he judgments relied upon by the learned Appellate Court h served and was fully aware of ial evidence and do not suffer fr ence under Article 227 of

- that f its uced urt's that ning that CPC arly, ourt acts. over ress e he ave

19.

Con hereby dismisse

20.

Pen

September 15, 2 tripti

Whethe

Whethe nsequently, this Civil Revision ed. nding application(s), if any, also 2025

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

n Petition being devoid of meri stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE king

-