CR No. 4765 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 4765 of 2009 Date of Decision: 24.8.2009 Ramesh and others ....Petitioners. Versus Sham Lal and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. S.R. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioners. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. In this revision petition filed by some of the plaintiffs under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to the order dated 11.5.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by the trial court whereby an application filed by defendant-respondents No.1 to 5 for setting aside ex parte decree dated 5.2.1998 was allowed and resultantly that decree was set aside and the suit was restored to its original number. The trial court after detailed examination of the evidence produced by the parties had, in paras 18 to 20 of its order, recorded as under:- “18. It is evident from the summon No. 46 that the defendants no.1 to 4 belong to Village Bhaira Bakipur and the defendant no.5 to Village Jakholi. But they are summoned by means of one summon. When CR No. 4765 of 2009 -2- there is a considerable distance between two Villages. Sham Lal, Jeet, Rajbir refused to take the summons. Babu Ram and Hukam concealed their presence. Rajbir belongs to Village Jakholi. Sardara, Chowkidar also belongs to Village Jakholi. Remaining defendants belong to Village Bhaira Bakipur and are of one family. How, the remaining defendants are shown to have refused to take the summons namely Sham Lal and Jeet, when they belong to Village Bhaira Bakipur and their refusal to take the summons has been shown in Village Jakholi. Similarly, Babu and Hukam concealed their presence, who belong to Village Bhaira Bakipur are shown to have concealed their presence in Village Jakholi. It means that the report by the Process Server on 05.05.1993 on the back of summon is false, which is shown to have been witnessed by Sardara Chowkidar and this report cannot be considered. 19. In so far as munadi of defendants of Village Bhaira Bakipur and of Village Jakholi is concerned that is shown to have been effected. Substituted service is to be ordered when the defendants cannot be served through ordinary service. In the instant case, service of defendants by ordinary process is fraudulent and manipulated, then their substituted service by way of CR No. 4765 of 2009 -3- munadi cannot be considered to be true. Therefore, once the defendants have been able to show that their service is false and result of manipulation of plaintiffs with Court officials and Chowkidars, it is for the plaintiffs to show that the defendants have been properly, legally and validly served by producing the Process Server and Chowkidar in the Court. 20. In the present case summons No.47 and 48 pertain to munadi of defendants in their respective Villages on the basis of their residence, but those are to be ignored because when the credit of Process Server and Sardara Chowkidar stands impeached as per report dated 05.05.1993, then, how the Process Server can be believed with regard to summons No.47 and 48. Even otherwise munadi is a weak type of evidence. It has to meet the requirements of substituted service as per Order 5 of CPC. It is not a mere formality, particularly when the rights of agitating parties are involved, and obtaining wrong service or false service of the other party by plaintiffs by colluding with the Court officials amounts to keeping the Court in dark and it also leads to passing of wrong judgment and decree by the Court. The applicants/defendants have been condemned unheard at their back, which is a violation of principle of natural justice.” CR No. 4765 of 2009 -4- In view of the above, no illegality or perversity could be pointed out in the impugned order dated 11.5.2009 which may warrant this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. August 24, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE