Civil Revision No. 4595 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4595 of 2008 Date of decision: 29.01.2009 Sunil ...Petitioner Versus Hawa Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Ajit Sihag, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Divya Sarup, Advocate for respondent no.1. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. It being common ground that the absentee respondents are not the contesting parties, the learned counsel have addressed arguments on merits of the case. The petitioner unsuccessfully contested the election held for the office of Sarpanch of village Umra, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar, on 3.5.2008. He secured only 11 votes. Respondent Krishan Kumar, who was declared winner secured 1445 votes. The election was won by one vote. The loser candidate secured 1444 votes. At the trial, exparte proceedings were ordered against the petitioner on 9.5.2005 as none entered appearance on his behalf on the date fixed before the Trial Court. The petitioner had been served through his father to whom a copy of the summons and the petition had been Civil Revision No. 4595 of 2008 -2- **** delivered by the Process Server. Thereafter, service by way of proclamation had also been effected upon the petitioner. Exparte order was passed against other respondents on 16.4.2008. It was thereafter only that the petitioner applied for setting aside of the exparte proceedings. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) allowed him to join the proceedings but ordered that he would be precluded from filing of any written statement. The petitioner has a grievance that the impugned order denying the reception of pleadings to be filed by him is improper. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to argue that the copy of summons and the petition had not been delivered to his father. All that he has been able to argue is that he was away to Gurgaon on that date in the context of his business and that the effecting of service upon his father in his absence cannot be said to be sufficient service. The plea raised is completely denuded of merit. In view of the fact that there is no controversy that petitioner and his father were joint in mess and residence, it is apparent that provisions of Order 5 Rule 15 have been complied with. That provision envisions a situation where a party, upon whom the service is to be effected, is absent from his residence and he has no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf. In that eventuality service can be effected on any adult member of the family whether male or female who is residing with him. It is neither here nor there to argue that the petitioner is running a business at Gurgaon. No such averment appears in the application filed in the context. It is, thus, apparent that the petitioner was away from the house only for a short duration. That being so, the effecting of service ( by delivery of a copy of summons and the petition to his father), followed up by a Munadi, Civil Revision No. 4595 of 2008 -3- **** was appropriate. Having said that, it also cannot be lost sight of that the petitioner had secured only 11 votes; whereas the winner and other two losers had secured 1445, 1444 and 1359 votes respectively. In the totality of the circumstances of the case, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. January 29, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge