Dismissed¶52

Gurdarshan Singh v. Pal Singh and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Sept 2025CR/3485/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, CR-3485-2025 (O&M), Mandeep Pannu J., 15.09.2025 — substituted service by newspaper publication ('Ashiana', Delhi); return of registered cover 'incomplete address'; ex parte judgment and decree dated 28.08.2015 set-aside refused; Order IX Rule 13 and Section 151 CPC; Order V Rule 20 CPC and Order V Rules 12, 15 and 17 CPC; erroneous reliance on summons receipt of 3rd October (execution, not suit); certified zimni orders; concurrent findings, no perversity, Article 227 scope; Subedar Amar Singh v. Avtar Singh 2003 (3) RCR (Civil) 580 and Rachna Mahajan 2018 (4) PLR 356 distinguished on facts; revision dismissed, Gurdaspur courts upheld.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. ¶52

Gurdarshan Singh Vs Pal Singh and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioner; pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether there are sufficient grounds to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree as prayed for (issue framed by the trial Court on the Order IX Rule 13 application, carried through the appeal and the present revision). +2 more

¶23

Court's answer

The learned Appellate Court wrongly relied on the petitioner's admission regarding receipt of summons dated 3rd October, which admittedly pertained to execution proceedings and not the original civil suit.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

Even if the appellate Court's erroneous finding on the 3rd October admission is ignored, there is ample evidence that the defendant was validly served in the civil suit: the Registered Cover was sent to his correct address, which he admits continues to be his present address, and the trial Court, upon recording satisfaction, ordered substituted service by publication which was duly effected.

¶41

Key takeaways

Though the appellate Court initially observed that the zimni orders had not been proved by the defendant, in the later portion of its judgment it discussed the certified copies of the zimni orders and concurred with the trial Court's satisfaction that the defendant could not be served in the ordinary course and that substituted service under Order V Rule 20 CPC was justified; read as a whole, its reasoning fully supports the finding that service was duly effected.ratio¶44
The judgments relied upon by the petitioner are distinguishable on facts and inapplicable: Subedar Amar Singh holds that unless steps under Order V Rules 12, 15 and 17 CPC are exhausted, substituted service under Rule 20 cannot be resorted to, and in Rachna Mahajan the trial Court had not recorded satisfaction before ordering substituted service and the address was not properly furnished; whereas here the trial Court did record satisfaction after the registered cover was returned, substituted service was ordered and carried out, and the address used is the very same at which the defendant continues to reside and where he was later served in execution.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India dismissed. The petitioner/defendant challenged (i) the order dated 11.09.2019 of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur dismissing his application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 28.08.2015, and (ii) the judgment dated 27.02.2025 of the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur in Civil Appeal No. 72/2022. After the registered cover was returned with the report 'incomplete address', substituted service by publication in the daily 'Ashiana' (Delhi) was effected on 25.07.2014 and the suit decreed ex parte on 28.08.2015. Held: the appellate Court's reliance on the defendant's admission of receipt of summons dated 3rd October was erroneous (it pertained to execution proceedings), but immaterial, since ample evidence showed valid service — the cover went to his admitted current address, satisfaction was recorded, and publication was duly effected; read as a whole the appellate judgment considered certified zimni orders and upheld substituted service under Order V Rule 20 CPC; Subedar Amar Singh (2003 (3) RCR (Civil) 580) and Rachna Mahajan (2018 (4) PLR 356) were distinguished on facts; the concurrent findings suffered no perversity or illegality warranting Article 227 interference.

¶1

CR-3485-2025 (O&M)

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

-.-

¶5

CR-3485-2025 (O&M) Reserved on:-11.09.2025 Pronounced on:- 15.09.2025

Gurdarshan Sin g h

....Petitioner

VERSUS

Pal Singh and A nother

¶10

....Respondents

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

¶12

Present: M r . Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for t h e petitioner. M s . Amandeep Kaur, Advocate fo r the respondents.

¶13

-.-

¶14

MANDEEP PANNU J.

¶15

Th i s order shall dispose of the p r esent Civil Revision Petition f i led under Article 2 27 of the Constitution of I n dia, challenging the order d a ted 11.09.2019 pa s sed by the learned Addition a l Civil Judge (Senior Divisi o n), Gurdaspur, wh e reby the application filed by t h e petitioner/defendant under O r der IX Rule 13 rea d with Section 151 CPC for sett i ng aside the ex parte judgment a nd decree dated 28.08.2015 was dismissed, and ju d gment dated 27.02.2025 passe d in Civil Appeal N o . 72/2022, titled as “Gurdarsha n Singh Vs. Pal Singh and Anot h er” by the learne d Additional District Judge, G urdaspur, dismissing the ap p eal preferred by th e petitioner/defendant.

¶16

Brief Facts

¶17

Th e plaintiffs instituted a civil s u it on 04.04.2014. Summons w ere issued to the p etitioner/defendant for 17.05. 2 014. The Registered Cover w as received back w ith a report of “incomplete ad dr ess.” The learned trial Court, a fter TRIPTI SAINIrecording satisf a ction that the defendant could n ot be served in the ordinary course, 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CR-3485-2025 (O&M) - 2 -

¶19

ordered substit u ted service through publicatio n in the daily “Ashiana” (a D e lhi Newspaper), w h ich was effected on 25.07.20 1 4. The defendant having faile d to appear, was pro c eeded against ex parte and the s uit was decreed on 28.08.2015. 3. Th e petitioner/defendant thereafte r filed an application under O r der IX Rule 13 CP C , pleading that he was never s erved with summons at his ac t ual address, that th e newspaper in which publicati o n was made had no circulatio n in his locality, an d that he remained unaware of th e suit until he received summons in execution proc e edings fixed for 5.11.2016. He a ccordingly prayed for setting a s ide the ex parte jud g ment and decree.

¶20

Th e respondents/plaintiffs contest e d the application, asserting that the defendant was duly served, was fully aware of the pendency of the suit, a nd deliberately ch o se not to appear. They empha s ized that the newspaper in w h ich publication wa s made had wide circulation, a n d that the non-appearance of the defendant was i n tentional and willful.

¶21

Fr o m the pleadings of the parties, t h e following issues were frame d by

¶22

the trial Court:

¶23

Whether there are sufficien t grounds to set aside the ex p a rte ju d gment and decree as prayed for ? OPA 2. Whether the application is n o t maintainable? OPR

¶24

Whether the applicant has n ot come to the Court with clean ha n ds? OPR

¶25

Relief.

¶26

In support of his application, t h e petitioner examined himsel f as AW-1 and ther e after, closed his evidence.

¶27

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

CR-3485-2025 (O&M) - 3 -

¶29

O n the other hand, Pal Singh, res p ondent/plaintiff, after apperin g as RW-1, also clo s ed his evidence.

¶30

Findings of the Courts Below

¶31

Af t er considering the evidence, t h e learned trial Court held that the defendant had b een validly served and that the r e were no sufficient grounds to set aside the ex p arte judgment. The applicati o n was accordingly dismissed on 11.09.2019.

¶32

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed Civil Appeal N o. 72/2022. The l e arned Additional District Judg e , Gurdaspur, dismissed the ap p eal vide judgment d ated 27.02.2025. The learned Appellate Court observed that the plea of non-ser v ice was not proved, and that t h e defendant had admitted in cr o ssexamination th a t he had received summons o n 3rd October, though he could not recall the year. T he Court also noticed that the a ddress on the registered cover w as the same as t h e address where the defenda n t continued to reside. Thoug h it observed that zimni orders were not proved by t he defendant, in the later portio n of the judgment t h e appellate Court did consider c ertified copies of the zimni or d ers and concluded t hat the learned trial Court had r ightly recorded satisfaction be f ore ordering substit u ted service.

¶33

Fe e ling aggrieved, the petitioner/ d efendant has filed the present c ivil revision petitio n .

¶34

Upon notice, respondents/plaintiff a ppeared and contested the sam e . Submissions of learned counsel for the parties

¶35

Le a rned counsel for the petitioner / defendant has argued that both the Courts below e r red in holding that he was awa r e of the pendency of the civil s uit. TRIPTI SAINIIt is submitted that the alleged admission re g arding receipt of summons on 3^rd 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

CR-3485-2025 (O&M) - 4 -

¶37

October pertain s not to the original suit, but to e xecution proceedings, and that the lower Courts w rongly relied upon this admiss i on. It is further submitted that the zimni orders re q uired no proof as they form pa r t of the Court record. Reliance has been placed on Subedar Amar Singh v. Avtar Singh, 2003 (3) RCR (Civil) 580 , and Rachna Mahajan & another v. Devinder Kumar Mehta, 2018 (4) PLR 356 , to contend that mandatory procedure under Or d er V CPC was not complied w ith before ordering substituted service.

¶38

Co n versely, learned counsel f o r the respondents/plaintiffs has supported the i m pugned orders, arguing that th e defendant resides at the very s a me address where s ummons were issued in the ci v il suit as well as in the execu t ion proceedings, th a t substituted service was duly effected after satisfaction recor d ed by the trial Cou r t, and that the impugned orders suffer from no illegality.

¶39

Findings of this Court

¶40

Ha v ing heard learned counsel for b oth sides and upon careful per u sal of the record, t h is Court is of the considered view that no ground for interference is made out.

¶41

It i s correct that the learned App e llate Court wrongly relied on the admission of t h e petitioner about receipt of s u mmons dated 3^rd October, w h ich admittedly pert a ined to execution proceedings a nd not the original civil suit. E v en if this erroneou s finding is ignored, there is am p le evidence on record to show t hat the defendant w as validly served in the civil sui t . The Registered Cover was se n t to his correct add r ess, which he admits continues to be his present address. The t rial Court, upon r e cording satisfaction, ordered s ubstituted service by publicat i on, which was duly effected.

¶42

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶43

CR-3485-2025 (O&M) - 5 -

¶44

Si m ilarly, though the learned Ap p ellate Court initially observed t hat the zimni order s had not been proved by the d efendant, in the later portion o f its judgment it spe c ifically discussed the certified c opies of the zimni orders prod u ced on record and, a fter examining the same, conc u rred with the learned trial Co u rt’s satisfaction tha t the defendant could not be ser v ed in the ordinary course and t hat substituted serv i ce under Order V Rule 20 CP C was justified. Thus, the reaso n ing of the learned A ppellate Court, read as a wh o le, fully supports the finding t hat service was dul y effected.

¶45

As regards the reliance on Subedar Amar Singh’s case (supra) , the said judgment h olds that unless the steps under Order V Rules 12, 15 and 17 C PC are exhausted, s ubstituted service under Rule 2 0 cannot be resorted to. Simil a rly, in Rachna Mahajan’s case (supra) , the Cour t found that the learned trial C o urt had not recorded satisfaction before orderin g substituted service and that the address was no t properly furnished. The prese n t case is distinguishable on f a cts. Here, the learn e d trial Court did record its sa t isfaction after the registered c o ver was returned, a nd substituted service was or d ered and carried out. The add r ess used was the v e ry same at which the defenda n t continues to reside and wher e he was later serv e d in execution. Therefore, t h e judgments relied upon by the petitioner are inapplicable to the present case.

¶46

Conclusion

¶47

Bo t h the learned trial Court and the learned Appellate Court have concurrently held that the petitioner was duly served and was fully aware of the proceedings. T h eir findings are based on mater i al evidence and do not suffer f r om perversity or illegality warranting interfer e nce under Article 227 of the

¶48

TRIPTI SAINIConstitution of I ndia. 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶49

CR-3485-2025 (O&M)

¶50

- 6 -

¶51

Co n sequently, this Civil Revisio n Petition being devoid of merit is

¶52

hereby dismiss e d.

¶53

Pe n ding application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶54

September 15, 2 025 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE Wheth e r speaking/non-speaking : Spea k ing Wheth e r reportable : Yes/ N o

¶55

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
(i) Order dated 11.09.2019 by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur, dismissing the petitioner/defendant's application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 28.08.2015; and (ii) judgment dated 27.02.2025 in Civil Appeal No. 72/2022 ('Gurdarshan Singh Vs. Pal Singh and Another') by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, dismissing the defendant's appeal.¶15
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur; Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur · 27.02.2025
Prior proceeding
Plaintiffs instituted a civil suit on 04.04.2014.¶17
Prior proceeding
Summons were issued to the petitioner/defendant for 17.05.2014.¶17
Prior proceeding
The Registered Cover was received back with a report of 'incomplete address'.¶17
Prior proceeding
After recording satisfaction that the defendant could not be served in the ordinary course, the trial Court ordered substituted service through publication in the daily 'Ashiana' (a Delhi Newspaper), effected on 25.07.2014.¶19
Prior proceeding
The defendant having failed to appear was proceeded against ex parte and the suit was decreed on 28.08.2015.¶19
Prior proceeding
Defendant filed application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC pleading he was never served at his actual address, the publication newspaper had no circulation in his locality, and he learnt of the suit only on receipt of summons in execution proceedings fixed for 5.11.2016.¶19
Prior proceeding
Trial Court held the defendant validly served, found no sufficient grounds to set aside the ex parte judgment, and dismissed the application on 11.09.2019.¶31
Prior proceeding
In Civil Appeal No. 72/2022, the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 27.02.2025, holding the plea of non-service unproved (noting defendant's cross-examination admission of receiving summons on 3rd October, year not recalled), and, considering certified copies of the zimni orders in the later portion of its judgment, concurring that the trial Court had rightly recorded satisfaction before ordering substituted service.¶32

Gurdarshan Singh v. Pal Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurdarshan Singh v. Pal Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karam Singh @ Karma Vs Mohit and Another

Ismail and Ors. Vs Chandeshwar Singh and Ors.

Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited Vs Suresho Devi and Ors.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mandeep Kaur and Others

Surinder Kaur & Ors. Vs Onkar Singh & Ors.

Sukhpal Kaur and Ors. Vs Balbir Singh