C.R.No.1309 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.1309 of 2009 Date of decision:23.11.2010 Punjab Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. ...Petitioner vs Teja Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr. Jagdeep Bains Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Tarunveer Vashishth, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. -- Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. As per the averments made in this petition, two persons namely Teja Singh and Labh Singh executed mortgage deed in favour of the petitioner-bank of their properties as collateral security and availed bank loan for the purchase of a Combine Machine. As per the bill shown to the bank, the Combine Machine was purchased by Teja Singh and Labh Singh on 19.8.1999 for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- which was paid by the bank to Balbir Singh Bhode, Bhode Combine Industries at Sunam, District Sangrur. The loan accounts were opened in the name of Teja Singh and Labh Singh respectively and entries regarding mortgage of the land in dispute were made in the revenue record which were continuing till date in the name of the bank. Meanwhile, respondents No. 1 to 3 i.e. Teja Singh and legal heirs of Labh Singh filed a suit for declaration against the petitioner-bank and others for a declaration as under:- C.R.No.1309 of 2009 2 “Suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are owners in possession over land measuring 48 kanals bearing khewat No.4 and 12 comprising Khasra Nos.35/23 (8-0), 37//12(8-0), 3 (8-0), 74//8 (6-8), 14(8-0), 9 (5-12), situated in the revenue estate of village Badalgarh, Tehsil Moonak and the entries in the revenue record regarding above said land regarding mortgage No.354 and 355 are illegal, null and void and is liable to be cancelled and adjudged and are liable to be correct in favour of the plaintiffs. AND Suit for permanent injunction to the effect that the defendants be restrained from receiving the loan amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from the plaintiff by use of coercive method with the help of defendant no.4 from the plaintiff...” In the aforesaid suit which was filed on 3.6.2003 bank was impleaded through manager Jeet Singh. However, on that date Jeet Singh was no longer Manager of the bank and one Mr.Naveen Garg was posted as the Manager of the Bank. Thus, there was no service upon the petitioner- bank of the proceedings of the civil suit pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Sunam, as no service was effected upon the bank. It is the case of the petitioner-bank that when the recovery agent visited the bank in September 2007 it came to the knowledge of the bank that the instant civil suit filed by the respondents was pending and vide order dated 23.7.2003, the bank had been proceeded against ex parte. Immediately application dated 17.9.2007 was filed on behalf of the bank for setting aside of the said ex parte order dated 23.7.2003. The respondents filed reply to the aforesaid application. Vide impugned order dated 31.1.2009, the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Moonak rejected the application filed by the bank. C.R.No.1309 of 2009 3 Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Civil Judge (Junior Division) has gravely erred in exercising the jurisdiction vested in him as the petitioner bank was not served in accordance with law, as Jeet Singh was not the manager of the bank on the relevant date. It is not in dispute that Jeet Singh was the bank manager of the petitioner bank only upto 31.3.2000. Thus, the service upon the bank through Jeet Singh Manager was no service in law. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that from the report of Process Server, it is clearly established that summons were served on Devinder Singh, Peon of the Bank and, therefore, service was duly effected upon the bank, as it is not the case of the petitioner that Devinder Singh Peon was not working there. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned order and other documents placed on the record of this case. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents is without any merit. Admittedly, the summons the bank were issued through manager Jeet Singh and the aforesaid summons were served upon the Peon of the bank who was not competent authority through whom the summons were issued to effect service upon the bank. There was no manager of the bank with the name of Jeet Singh in whose name summons were issued to whom Devinder Singh could have informed about the summons. Devinder Singh, Peon does not come in the category of authorised officer through whom service could be effected as per the provisions of Order 29 rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure which have been relied upon by the trial Court. C.R.No.1309 of 2009 4 It is well settled law that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are handmaid for justice and defence of a party cannot be shut merely on the basis of techanilities. No other circumstance has been shown on the basis of which it can be said that the petitioner bank was negligent in not persuing its remedy or was in the knowledge of the pendency of the suit. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 13.12.2010. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge November 23, 2010 rk