IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 8 of 2010. Decided on: 9.7.2010. __________________________________________________ Capt. Surat Singh and another. … Petitioners. Versus Smt. Bimla Devi. … Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners : Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondent : Nemo. ___________________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). On 7.1.2010 orders to issue notice to the sole respondent were passed by this Court. Accordingly, notice was issued to her on 19.1.2010 for 29.3.2010. On 29.3.2010, the petition was ordered to be listed on 30.3.2010. On 30.3.2010, orders to await the notice issued to the respondent were passed and the petition was ordered to be listed after four weeks. Thereafter, on 4.6.2010, when the matter was taken up by the Additional Registrar (Judicial), the following order came to be passed in Part-B: “Notice issued to the sole respondent was issued vide postal receipt No. 0488 dated 22.1.2010 returnable for 28.5.2010. But the same has not been received back either served or unserved. In view of the provisions contained in proviso to sub-rule (5) to Rule 9 of Order 5, CPC, the aforesaid registered letter containing notice of the sole 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 respondent is deemed to has been served upon the said respondent through registered AD post. None has put in appearance on her behalf. Be processed further.” 2. On 25.6.2010 again the following order was passed by this Court: “As per office report dated 23.6.2010 service is complete. None has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent. In the interest of justice the matter is adjourned. List on 2nd July, 2010.” 3. In view of the above, it is apparent that presumption of deemed service of notice upon the respondent was drawn by the Additional Registrar (Judicial), vide the aforesaid order dated 4.6.2010. In such circumstances, it appears that the respondent is not interested to contest the present petition. 4. Heard. 5. A suit for recovery of Rs. 3 lac was filed by the petitioners as plaintiffs against the respondent being the defendant in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Solan, H.P. on 3.1.2007. However, since the petitioners/plaintiffs could not take effective steps for service of the respondent/defendant, the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution, vide the impugned order, dated 25.11.2009, Annexure P-1. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after the suit was filed, the original plaintiff Capt. Surat Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners/plaintiffs died. Before that, unfortunately his counsel Mr. Mohinder Chauhan had also died and it was in such circumstances that on some of the dates of hearing orders with regard to taking steps for service of the 3 respondent/defendant could not be taken. However, on other dates, such steps were duly taken but the respondent/defendant could not be served on the last known address as she was evading service. 6. Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that it shall be expedient and in the interest of justice in case another opportunity is granted to the petitioners/plaintiffs for taking requisite steps to serve the respondent/defendant so as to enable them to prosecute the suit which has been dismissed at the very initial stage. 7. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 25.11.2009, Annexure P-1, shall stand set aside. As a result, the learned trial Court shall afford one more opportunity to the petitioners/plaintiffs to serve the respondent/defendant in the suit being Civil Suit No. 5/1 of 2007, titled Capt. Surat Singh (deceased) through L.Rs. Rajiv Singh Kanwar and another versus Bimla Devi. The petitioners/plaintiffs are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 26.7.2010. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court for information and compliance. 8. Petition stands disposed of. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. July 9, 2010. (cr)