IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.459 of 2005 MOST.DARBI DEVI & ORS Versus CHANDRAKALA DEVI & ORS ----------- 14 10.07.2008 Heard counsel for both the parties. The plaintiff petitioners respondents have assailed the order dated 14th of December, 2004 in Misc. Appeal No. 21 of 1985 whereby and whereunder the appellate Court has set aside the order dated 29.8.1985 passed by the Court below refusing to set-aside the exparte judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 81 of 1977. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the approach of lower appellate Court in fact seems to be quite erroneous inasmuch as even it is accepted that the Postal Peon’s report was some how obtained and/or interpolated yet it had to consider that there was already a substituted service and therefore, the summons would be deemed to have been served 2 effectively on the defendant opposite parties. On the other hand, counsel for the defendant opposite parties has submitted that even the plea of substituted service by publication of notice in the newspaper cannot be accepted to be a valid service because it was published in some local periodical namely ‘Angar’ which was neither a daily newspaper nor had any circulation in the locality of the residence of the defendant opposite parties and as such did not fulfill the requirement of substituted service in terms of Order-V Rule-20 C.P.C. In the opinion of this Court the submission of the learned counsel for the defendant opposite parties seems to be correct. The findings of the lower appellate court on the plea of substituted service based on evidence in this regard is quite specific that the periodical ‘Angar’is a weekly magazine and not a daily newspaper and had no circulation in the locality. That apart finding recorded by 3 that summons were actually not served on the opposite parties, appellants in this Misc. case is also unexceptional. The counsel for the petitioner infact could not point out any error in such finding recorded by the lower appellate court in the impugned order. It has always to be kept in mind that a suit has to be disposed of on merit in preference to its being decided exparte. In that view of the matter, the present Civil Revision Application seeking to assail the order of the lower appellate Court is devoid of any merit. This Court is not unmindful of the fact that the suit is of the year, 1977 and in which the plaintiffs had already completed their evidence and the exparte judgment came to be passed on 27.1.1979. Thus if at the instance of the defendant-opposite parties the suit has to be heard on merit they must co-operate for its expeditious disposal. Accordingly, this Court would direct the trial Court to take up this 4 suit of the year, 1977 on priority basis and ensure that the same is disposed of within one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is made clear in presence of counsel for both the parties in this Court that if any party would seek unnecessary adjournment in the suit so as to extend the period of one year, the Court below will be at liberty to proceed ahead without giving any further indulgence in this matter. With the aforesaid observation and direction this Civil Revision application is dismissed. BCJ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)