Dilbagh Singh vs Nishan Singh

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Dilbagh Singh vs Nishan Singh on 13 May, 2024

Author: Alka Sarin

Bench: Alka Sarin

                                                                                                         -1-

                         CR-2751-2024




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                                   CHANDIGARH

                         131                                             CR-2751-2024 (O&M)
                                                                         Reserved on : 06.05.2024
                                                                         Pronounced on : 13.05.2024

                         DILBAGH SINGH                                                        ....Petitioner

                                                              VERSUS

                         NISHAN SINGH                                                       ....Respondent

                         CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

                         Present :      Mr. Ranbir Singh Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner.

                         ALKA SARIN, J.

1. The present revision petition has been preferred by the defendant-petitioner challenging the order dated 17.07.2023 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ferozepur whereby the application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order 37 Rule 4 CPC read with Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and Section 151 CPC for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree dated 06.03.2020 passed in Civil Suit No.190 dated 28.08.2019 was dismissed as also the order dated 18.04.2024 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur whereby the appeal was also dismissed.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present case are that the plaintiff- respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.3,51,000/- along with interest against the defendant-petitioner which was decreed vide ex parte judgment and decree dated 06.03.2020. The defendant-petitioner herein filed an AMAN JAIN 2024.05.12 23:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order.

CR-2751-2024 application under Order 37 Rule 4 CPC read with Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and Section 151 CPC for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree dated 06.03.2020 which was dismissed vide order dated 17.07.2023. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred which was also dismissed vide order dated 18.04.2024. Hence, the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner would contend that no proper address of the defendant-petitioner was mentioned in the plaint and that the notice was not personally served upon the petitioner as required under law. It is further the contention that the petitioner was not even served by way of munadi.

4. Heard.

5. In the present case it has concurrently been found by both the Courts below that the summons were issued on the prescribed proforma and was served upon Hardeep Singh son of Dilbagh Singh (the petitioner herein). Son of the defendant-petitioner appended his signatures on the back side of the summons. Thereafter, Process Server, namely, Harjit Singh reported that the summons stood duly served. Order V Rule 15 CPC reads as under :

"Order V ISSUE AND SERVICE OF SUMMONS xxx AMAN JAIN 2024.05.12 23:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order. -3-

CR-2751-2024

15. Where service may be on an adult member of defendant's family - Where in any suit the defendant is absent from his residence at the time when the service of summons 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 he has no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, service may be made on any adult member of the family, whether male or female, who is residing with him."

6. In view of the above reproduced provisions it is on the face of it apparent that the defendant-petitioner stood duly served through his son. Further still, summons were also issued through munadi which was effected and the report of the Chowkidar, namely, Jaila Singh stated that munadi was effected in the area by beat of drum and one copy of the summons was also affixed on the conspicuous part of the house of Dilbagh Singh (the petitioner herein) and hence it cannot be said the defendant-petitioner was not duly served. Since the defendant-petitioner, despite service, did not appear on 23.10.2019 he was served through munadi and affixation on 14.12.2019. Though the matter was adjourned to 02.01.2020, however, since 02.01.2020 was declared as a holiday the matter was taken up on 03.01.2020 when the defendant-petitioner was proceeded against ex parte. Learned counsel for the AMAN JAIN 2024.05.12 23:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order.

CR-2751-2024 defendant-petitioner has not been able to convince this Court that proper service was not effected on him. It is not the case of the defendant-petitioner that the signatures on the summons are not those of his son. Once the defendant-petitioner stood duly served not only by ordinary process through his son but also by way of munadi, the application under Order 37 Rule 4 CPC read with Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and Section 151 CPC has rightly been dismissed by both the Courts below. It has also come on the record that another suit being Civil Suit No.37/190/2019 was filed by the plaintiff- respondent for recovery of Rs.7,20,000/- wherein also the defendant- petitioner did not appear and he was proceeded against ex parte and the suit was eventually decreed for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- with pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of issuance of the cheque till the date of the realization of the decretal amount.

7. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, I find no merit in the present revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

                         13.05.2024                                            (ALKA SARIN)
                         Aman Jain                                                 JUDGE

NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO AMAN JAIN 2024.05.12 23:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order.