Civil Revision No. 1406 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1406 of 2009 Date of decision : 20.1.2010 Sumer Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus Nand Kumar @ Nand Kishore ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioners herein are in revision against the order dated 8.11.2008 (Annexure P-2), vide which petition was decreed exparte against them and also order dated 12.3.2009 (Annexure P-3), vide which their plea under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside of the exparte order was negatived. There was a precise averment, on behalf of the petitioners, in the course of the presentation made before the learned Rent Controller, that their residential address given therein (as Mohalla Meharwara, Rewari) was incorrect inasmuch as they never resided over there and they are permanent resident of Delhi Gate, Rewari since the time of their ancestors. Further averment in the context was that they have been putting up in house bearing MC House Tax No.435. In response thereto, the respondents had averred that it was that address only at which the petitioners had been served for appearance in a number of indicates cases. Further averment in the context was that the service of summonses had been effected upon them at very addresses in various other cases whose particulars were indicated in the course thereof. The relevant interim orders have been quoted in the course of the petition itself. It was on 11.1.2005 that the petition was presented Civil Revision No. 1406 of 2009 -2- **** before the learned Rent Controller for the first time. While adjourning the matter to 22.3.2005, it was ordered that the notice of the petition shall be given to the respondents (therein) for 23.3.2005. On the adjourned date, summonses issued to the respondent therein had been received unserved. The matter was adjourned to 16.5.2005 for effecting service upon them. On 16.5.2005, the following order was recorded by the learned Trial Court:- “Summons issued to respondents nos. 1 and 2 received back with the report of Chaspa. It is valid service. Case called several times but none is present on behalf of the respondents no.1 and 2. Hence, they are proceeded against exparte. Now for exparte evidence to come up on 8.12.2005.” It would be apparent, from the perusal of the above quoted order, that the service by affixation was treated as sufficient service. Though not noticed in the order, it is otherwise common ground presently that respondents no.1 and 2 were reported to have refused to accept the service. There were no orders of the Court directing effecting of service by affixation. If a party had reportedly refused to accept the service, the only option available to the Court concerned is to order effecting of substituted service, either by means of effecting of Munadi or publication of the court notices. In the light of foregoing discussion, it is apparent that the impugned initial order was not on a firmer footing. The petition shall stand allowed. The impugned orders Annexure P/2 and Annexure P/3 shall stand set aside. The parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the learned Rent Controller on 1.2.2010. In view of the fact that adjudication of the matter, which pertains to the year 2005, had already been inordinately delayed, it is directed that learned Rent Controller shall dispose of the main petition itself within three months from the 1.2.2010. The acknowledgment (of a copy of this order) issued by the concerned Judicial Officer shall be forwarded to the Registry of this Court. Learned Sessions Judge shall himself maintain a tab to ensure that the case is disposed of by afore-mentioned date. January 20, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE