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
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
integrity of this judgment/order.
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
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
integrity of this judgment/order.
