C.R.No.5039 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5039 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 11 , 2009 Raj Kumari etc. ...........Petitioners Versus Pardeep Kumar etc. ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.B.S.Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Rajiv Sharma, Advocate,for the respondents -- Sabina, J. (oral) This revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside the order dated 8.9.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dasuya whereby the application of the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 23.12.2005 was dismissed. Plaitniff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 and 2 were joint owners in possession in equal shares of the suit land. Vide impugned order dated 8.9.2008, the application filed by petitioner-defendant No. 5 for setting aside the ex- parte order dated 23.12.2005was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 31.10.2005, a report qua service before the Court was received that the petitioner was residing in the house of her in laws. However, a munadi was C.R.No.5039 of 2008 (O&M) 2 ordered to be got effected at the old address of the petitioner. Hence, no proper service had been effected on the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner was a proforma defendant and was duly represented by a counsel in proceedings which took place before this Court and, hence, her absence before the trial Court was deliberate. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. The suit filed by the plaintiff was disposed of on the basis of compromise on 20.5.2003. The said decision was challenged by respondent No.1 on the ground that he had not appeared before the Civil Court at the time of compromise. The appeal filed by respondent No.1 was allowed by the Additional District Judge on 23.5.2005 and the compromise decree was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the trial Court for decision of the suit afresh on 31.10.2005. The trial Court passed the following order:- “Summons of defendants no.4 received back with the report of died and no. 5 to 7 with the report of residing in the house of in laws. I am satisfied that defendants no. 5 to 7 cannot be served through ordinary way and they are ordered to be served through mundai on deposit of MF/PF after 5.12.2005 as they are proforma defendants only. Summons to defendants No. 3 be again summoned in terms of previous order and on filing of RC for the date fixed. ACJSD/31.10.05” The plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that C.R.No.5039 of 2008 (O&M) 3 mundai was effected on the petitioner on her old address has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents. In these circumstances, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that no proper service had been effected on the petitioner by the trial Court has force. Learned trial Court has, thus,erred in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings initiated against her. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 8.9.2008 is set aside and, consequently, the exparte proceedings initiated against the petitioner dated 23.12.2005 are set aside. ( Sabina ) Judge November 11, 2009 arya