C.R. No. 4960 of 2006 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4960 of 2006 Date of Decision : 25.8.2009 Surjit Singh .......... Petitioner Versus Gurmat Singh & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 14.8.2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge ( Jr. Divn.), Mansa vide which the application moved by the petitioner for setting aside ex parte proceeding, has been ordered to be dismissed. The plaintiff / respondents filed a suit for possession regarding land measuring 214 Kanal situated at village Hasanpur, Tehsil and District Mansa. The plaintiffs had also challenged the sale deed dated 21.6.1994 executed by Surjeet Singh son of Chand Singh resident of Phapare Bhai Ke in favour of Daljeet Kaur wife of Bachan Singh and others. The petitioner was not served by ordinary process, as the registered cover sent did not depict the correct address. While sending the notices by way of registered C.R. No. 4960 of 2006 2 post, the petitioner was shown to be resident of District Fatehabad in Haryana, though, in the plaint the address of the petitioner was shown to be that of District Mansa. The learned trial Court had ordered the service by way of substituted served by publishing the notice in the Punjabi Newspaper Chardhikala, which is published from Patiala. The petitioner on coming to know about the ex parte proceedings moved an application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 26.3.1996, on the ground, that the petitioner was not served in this suit, and immediately on coming to know about it, the application was moved. The learned trial Court did not go into the question as to whether the petitioner was resident of District Fatehabad and further, that the address on the registered letter was not correct. The learned Court proceeded on the presumption that the petitioner had been served by way of substituted service by publication in Chardhikala newspaper. The learned trial Court took into consideration the notification issued by this Court, that the Chardhikala, newspaper has unrestricted circulation, for the purpose of publication in India, and, thus, came to the conclusion, that the petitioner was rightly proceeded against ex parte. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that the petitioner was resident of village Bara, District Fatehabad, there is no circulation of Chardhikala newspaper. Once a specific stand was taken by the respondent that the newspaper had no circulation in the area, where petitioner was residing, it was for the plaintiff / respondent to have proved this. It was further required, that the plaintiff should have shown as to why C.R. No. 4960 of 2006 3 the address of the defendant was wrongly mentioned in the plaint, and also why the registered letters were sent on the wrong address. In absence of any proof of circulation of newspaper Chardhikala in remote village in Haryana, it could not be presumed, that the petitioner was served. The learned trial Court has drawn presumption of service but failed to record a positive finding, that the petitioner was in fact served. The plaintiff / respondents at best could have been compensated with costs, as the case was at evidence stage. The order, passed by the learned trial Court, therefore, cannot be sustained. Resultantly, this revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The application moved by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed subject to payment of Rs. 3,000/- ( Rupees three thousand only ) as costs. Revision allowed. 25.8.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE