Civil Revision No.2740 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.2740 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: April 27, 2011 Dipin Jain and others .....Petitioners v. Punjab State Electricity Board and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Nimanyu Gautam, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.11015-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.2740 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned orders dated 22.9.2010, Annexure P4, and 19.4.2011, Annexure P7, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ludhiana, vide which application filed by petitioners for setting aside ex parte proceedings against them was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by learned trial Court. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for recovery of `58,26,014/- was filed by respondent no.1- plaintiff, i.e., Punjab State Electricity Board against M/s Prestige Feeds, i.e., respondent no.2-defendant no.1, a partnership firm, of which the present petitioners alongwith respondents nos.3 to 4 were the partners. The suit is regarding recovery of electricity charges. Electricity connection was disconnected on 14.1.1995 and demand was raised, as petitioners and other Civil Revision No.2740 of 2011(O&M) -2- respondents-defendants were found committing theft of electricity. Suit was filed on 23.12.1996. Notice of suit was given to petitioners-defendants and other respondents-defendants. Suit was contested by one of the partners of the said firm and, however, as none appeared to contest on behalf of other defendants, including present petitioners, hence, they were proceeded ex parte. Case was at the stage of arguments when the present application, Annexure P2, was filed by present petitioners for setting aside ex parte proceedings against them, which was dismissed by learned trial Court by observing as under:- “7. From the perusal of file, it reveals that the civil suit was filed on 2.1.97 and the defendants were ordered to be summoned through RC. From the perusal of orders dated 19.3.98 it shows that summons were issued to the defendants no.1, 4, 5 to 7 which were received back unserved and they were ordered to be summoned again for 26.8.98, 11.12.98, 9.3.99, 4.6.99, 4.9.99 and 6.12.99. From the perusal of orders dated 3.3.2000 it shows that summons were sent to the defendants which were received back with the report of refusal. Therefore, defendants were summoned through munadi and affixation for 17.5.2000 and thereafter the case was adjourned for 17.5.2000, 7.8.2000, 29.9.2000, 6.11.2000. From the perusal of orders dated 20.12.2000 munadi for defendants no.5 and 6 was received back duly effected but none come present on behalf of defendants no.5 and 6 and they were proceeded against ex parte. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for summoning of defendants no.1 and 7. From the perusal of orders dated 15.5.01, summons of defendant no.7 received back unserved and defendant no.1 was ordered to be summoned on filing PF and copy and the case was adjourned to 17.7.01 and thereafter, for 20.9.01, 13.11.01. From perusal of orders dated 26.2.02, defendant no.7 was served through munadi but none has come present on behalf of defendant no.7 and defendant no.7 was proceeded against ex parte. 8. The contention of the applicant that Civil Revision No.2740 of 2011(O&M) -3- applicants/defendants no.5 to 7 are residents of 17-B/3, Old Palasia, Indore (MP). From the perusal of file it reveals that nothing has been placed by the applicants to prove this fact that the applicants/defendants No.5 to 7 are residents of Indore. Since the applicants/defendants no.5 to 7 have failed to convince the court that they have filed the present application within the period of limitation. Application is not maintainable since already evidence of the defendant has been closed and the case has been fixed for arguments. The present application has been filed just to delay the proceedings of the case. Therefore, I do not find any ground to allow the application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings against defendants no.5 to 7. So, the same stands dismissed being devoid of merits and disposed of.” Thereafter, an application for reviewing the said order was also filed by petitioners, Annexure P5, which was also dismissed by learned trial Court, vide impugned order, Annexure P7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that summons were never sent on the correct address of petitioners and, hence, it is contended that learned trial Court has committed illegality in rejecting the application filed by petitioners for setting aside ex parte proceedings against them. As is clear from the aforementioned orders passed by learned trial Court, summons were sent to the petitioners on their address given by them to respondent no.1-plaintiff, i.e., Punjab State Electricity Board, at the time of taking electricity connection. Moreover one of the partners was already contesting the suit. Summons were sent time and again to present petitioners by learned trial Court by ordinary post as well as by registered covers. The service was also effected by way of substituted service, i.e., munadi, however, when none appeared, they were ordered to be proceeded ex parte. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2-defendants no.5 and 6 were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 20.12.2000, whereas petitioner no.3-defendant no.7 was proceeded ex parte on 26.2.2002. It has also been observed by learned trial Court that nothing has been placed on record on behalf of the petitioners to show that they were not residing at the address given in the Civil Revision No.2740 of 2011(O&M) -4- plaint and that they were residing at Indore. The suit has already become about 15 years old. Evidence of plaintiff as well as of contesting defendant has already been recorded and the case was fixed for arguments, when the present application has been filed. Hence, it has been rightly observed by learned trial Court that present application has been filed just to prolong the decision of the case. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned orders or that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147 that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court. This Court can interfere only when the error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 27.4.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge