Dismissed¶¶31

Sona Devi v. Ramesh Kumar and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Nov 2025CR/3417/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab and Haryana High Court; CR-3417-2025 (O&M); decided 13.11.2025; Nidhi Gupta, J.; Civil Revision under Article 227 Constitution of India; Order 9 Rule 13 CPC; Order 22 read with Section 151 CPC; setting aside ex-parte order dated 10.04.2024 and ex-parte judgment and decree dated 07.05.2024; restoration of civil suit; improper service; service through publication without prior notice; Punjabi language newspaper; mediation compromise Ex.C1; zimni order 05.04.2023; Civil Judge (Junior Division) Karnal; revision petition dismissed; Sona Devi v. Ramesh Kumar and others.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's submissions (including that the trial court's premise was factually incorrect) fail: this Court found no merit in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. ¶¶20

Sona Devi Vs Ramesh Kumar and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order allowing the defendants' application to set aside the ex-parte order dated 10.04.2024 and ex-parte judgment and decree dated 07.05.2024 rested on a factually incorrect premise — namely that service was effected through publication without first issuing notice — given the zimni order dated 05.04.2023 recording prior issuance of notice, as contended by the petitioner. +1 more

¶¶15

Court's answer

The petitioner's submissions (including that the trial court's premise was factually incorrect) fail: this Court found no merit in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶¶20

Ratio / Principle

The trial court's observations are endorsed as correct: the plaintiff, despite having knowledge of the correct addresses of the applicant-defendants, had not ensured proper service upon them; service through publication was made in a Punjabi-language newspaper only; and, for proper adjudication of the matter, the presence of the defendants/applicants is necessary.

¶¶27

Key takeaways

Given the facts and circumstances, no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned order dated 16.04.2025.ratio¶¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Nidhi Gupta, J.) — Civil Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution dismissed (13.11.2025). The Trial Court's order dated 16.04.2025 allowing defendants No. 12, 19, 20, 21 and 24 to set aside, under Order 9 Rule 13 and Order 22 read with Section 151 CPC, the ex-parte order dated 10.04.2024 and the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 07.05.2024 (suit having been decreed in terms of a mediation compromise Ex.C1 binding only the appearing parties), and to restore the suit to its original number, was upheld: the plaintiff, despite knowing the applicants' correct addresses, had not ensured proper service, and publication was effected in a Punjabi-language newspaper only; the presence of the defendants was held necessary for proper adjudication. The petitioner's contention that notice had first been issued (per zimni order dated 05.04.2023) before resort to publication was found devoid of merit. Pending applications disposed of.

¶1

CR-3417-2025 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

134 CR-3417-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.11.2025

Sona Devi

...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Ramesh Kumar and others

¶9

...Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶11

Present:Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

¶14

Present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff seeking setÝng aside of the order dated 16.04.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal; whereby application filed by the respondent/defendants No. 12, 19, 20, 21 and 24,, under Order 9 Rule 13 and Order 22 read with Section 151 CPC for setÝng aside the ex-parte order dated 10.04.2024 (Annexure P-1) and ex-parte judgment and decree dated 07.05.2024 (Annexure P-2) has been allowed, and Civil Suit was ordered to be restored to its original number.

¶15

It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that vide the impugned order, application of the respondents filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC has been allowed by the learned Trial Court on the ground that the service upon the respondents was effected through publication in the first instance itself without first issuing notice to them.

¶16

DIVYANSHI 2025.11.14 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CR-3417-2025 (O&M)

¶18

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that as recorded in the zimni order dated 05.04.2023 (Annexure P-6), it is clear that notice was issued to the defendants; and as they remained unserved, application was moved on behalf of the plaintiff for service through publication. Learned counsel contends that therefore, the premise on which the impugned order has been passed, is factually incorrect. It is accordingly prayed that the present Revision Petition be allowed; and the impugned order dated 16.04.2025 (Annexure P-5) be set aside.

¶20

No other argument is raised on behalf of the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶21

A perusal of the record of the case shows that petitioner had filed a Civil Suit for declaration and permanent injunction on 27.03.2023 in which notice was issued. Upon notice, defendants had appeared and filed written statement. Subsequently, vide order dated 10.04.2024 (Annexure P-1), defendants No. 2 to 15 and 19 to 38 were proceeded against ex parte; in pursuance to which final order/Award and ex-parte judgment and decree dated 07.05.2024 (Annexure P-2) came to be passed. Subsequently, respondents No. 12, 19, 20, 21 and 24 moved instant application dated 16.11.2024 under Order 9 Rule 13 and Order 22 read with Section 151 CPC for setÝng aside the ex-parte order dated

¶22

DIVYANSHI 10.04.2024 (Annexure P-1) and ex-parte judgment and decree dated 2025.11.14 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CR-3417-2025 (O&M)

¶24

¶25

07.05.2024 (Annexure P-2). Vide the impugned order, the said application has been allowed.

¶26

It is to be noted that in the judgment and decree dated 07.05.2024 (Annexure P-2), the learned Trial Court has observed that the matter was sent for Mediation; whereupon parties had entered into a compromise Ex.C1 which formed part and parcel of the decree. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner stood decreed in terms of the compromise. Learned Trial Court further observed that only the appearing parties are bound by the compromise; and 3^rd party is not bound by the Award. Thereafter, respondents No. 12, 19, 20, 24 and 21 had filed the instant application dated 16.11.2024 (Annexure P-3) for setÝng aside the ex-parte order, to which the petitioner had filed reply dated 08.04.2025 (Annexure P-4).

¶27

It is also to be noted that in the impugned order dated 16.04.2025 (Annexure P-5), learned Trial Court has categorically observed that the plaintiff despite having knowledge of the correct addresses of the applicants, had not ensured proper service upon them. Moreover, service through publication was made in Punjabi language newspaper only. Be that as it may, in any event, for the proper adjudication of the matter, presence of the defendants/applicants is necessary. This has been correctly observed by the learned Trial Court in impugned order.

¶28

Given the above facts and circumstances of this case, I find DIVYANSHI no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned order dated 2025.11.14 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

CR-3417-2025 (O&M)

¶30

¶31

16.04.2025 (Annexure P-5). The present Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶32