IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5108 of 2008 Date of decision:- 18.8.2010 Ram Gopal ......petitioner vs. Rajbir and others ......respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Vijay Singh, Advocate for Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 17.3.2008 and the order dated 21.8.2008 passed by learned first Appellate Court, whereby an application filed by the petitioner setting aside the ex-parte judgment-decree dated 19.5.2005 was dismissed. The plaintiff-respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 26.4.1999. In the said suit, the petitioner was proceeded ex-parte after he was deemed to be served by munadi in the village. The petitioner moved an application for setting aside of the ex-parte judgment-decree on 10.9.2007, which has been dismissed by the learned trial Court and the said order has been affirmed in appeal. The learned trial Court has found that though earlier notice was served by the petitioner upon the plaintiff-respondents which was returned with the remarks by the postal authority that the petitioner has gone abroad. But still, the ex-parte proceedings were not set aside as there was nothing on the record to show that the address of the petitioner could be known and that the plaintiff-respondents were either aware that the petitioner has permanently shifted abroad or that they were aware about the correct and complete address of the petitioner. The said order has been affirmed in appeal for the reason that it is not possible for each and every person to locate the correct address of a person residing abroad. It was found that a fresh address of a person is not available, therefore, the service by the summons can be affected on his permanent place of residence through munadi. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and found that the order passed by the learned Courts cannot be said to be legally sustainable. Though, it may not have been possible for the plaintiff to obtain the correct address of the defendant but the fact remains that if the defendant has filed an application for setting aside of the ex-parte judgment-decree for the reason that he was residing abroad and had no knowledge about the suit, it makes out a fit case for setting aside of ex-parte judgment-decree. The arguments that the wife of the petitioner or his brother was residing in a village are not sufficient to infer the knowledge of the filing of the suit to the petitioner. In terms of Order 5 Rule 15 of Code of Civil Procedure, any of the defendants could be served by adult member of the family. However, even though the wife of the respondent was available in the village but that petitioner has not been served through his wife or his brother but by way of munadi. The service of munadi is a weak kind of service. The petitioner has established that he was not served. In these circumstances, the learned Courts should have set aside the ex-parte judgment-decree to enable the petitioner to contest the suit on merits. In view of the said fact, the orders passed by the Courts below are set aside, the ex-parte judgment-decree against the present petitioner is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial Court to decide the suit on merits. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 6.9.2010. Allowed, in the above terms. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 18.8.2010 preeti