C.R No.1431 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R No.1431 of 2011 Date of decision: 1.3.2011. Hakam Singh .............Petitioner v Paramjit Kaur and others ..............Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr. R.K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh,J By filing the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 6.9.2010 (P.2) whereby respondent Nos.1 & 2 were ordered to be summoned through substituted service by way of publication in “daily Indian Express” as well as order dated 21.10.2010 (P.3) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala dismissing the appeal against respondent Nos.1 & 2 for non-depositing of publication fee. Plaintiff-petitioner filed a civil suit No.317T of 26.3.2001 for specific performance against defendants/respondents. Vide judgment and decree dated 28.2.2009, learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Patiala dismissed the suit. Aggrieved against the C.R No.1431 of 2011 #2# judgment and decree, the plaintiff-appellant filed an appeal dated 30.4.2009 (P.1) in which the learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 6.9.2010 (P.2) ordered for summoning of respondent Nos.1 & 2 through substituted service by way of publication in the “daily Indian Express” newspaper for 21.10.2010 on filing of publication fee within a period of seven days. On 21.10.2010, the appeal came up for hearing but the same has been dismissed on account of non-compliance of the order dated 6.9.2010 (P.2). Hence the present revision petition. I have learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book. It is contended by learned counsel for the plaintiff- petitioner that vide orders dated 13.6.2001 and 23.10.2001, defendants- respondent Nos.1 & 2 were proceeded ex parte before the learned trial Court and only respondent Nos.3 to 6 contested the suit by taking the plea of bonafide purchasers. It is further submitted that respondent Nos.3 to 6 were very well being represented by their counsel before the learned Ist Appellate Court and, therefore, there was no occasion for the learned Additional District Judge to dismiss the appeal only on account of non-deposit of publication fee for service of defendants/respondent Nos.1 & 2. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not aware of passing of order dated 6.9.2010 (P.2) as his counsel at Patiala did not inform of the depositing of publication fee. Learned counsel further undertakes that the petitioner is still ready and willing to comply with the order dated 6.9.2010 subject to payment of C.R No.1431 of 2011 #3# costs. From the perusal of impugned order dated 21.10.2010, it is very much clear that defendant/respondent Nos.3 to 6 were very well being represented by their counsel but the appeal has been dismissed for non-deposit of publication fee for service of respondent Nos.1 & 2. It is the specific stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court as submitted in paragraph 3 of the revision petition that defendants-respondent Nos.1 & 2 were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 13.6.2001 and 23.10.2001 respectively but only respondent Nos.3 to 6 contested the suit. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not aware of the deposit of publication fee for substituted service of respondent Nos.1 & 2 in the newspaper seems to be genuine and bonafide and the same is acceptable. Consequently, present petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 21.10.2010 (P.3) is set aside and liberty is granted to the plaintiff-petitioner to deposit the publication fee for substituted service of respondent Nos.1 & 2 with the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala within a period of three weeks from today subject to payment of Rs.3000/- as costs to be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority, Patiala. 1.3.2011. (Jaswant Singh) manoj Judge