Maintenance Tribunal Has Inherent Power to Recall Ex Parte Orders Passed Without Valid Service; Death of Senior Citizen Bars Fresh Adjudication, Not Challenge to Illegal Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Name: Jaswinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Others
Date of Judgment: 01.10.2026
Citation: CWP-17526-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Kirti Singh
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that although Order IX Rule 13 CPC is not directly applicable to proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the Maintenance Tribunal possesses incidental procedural jurisdiction to recall an ex parte order passed without due service. The Court further held that substituted service by newspaper publication cannot be treated as valid merely because the foreign address of a person residing abroad is unknown. Upon the death of the senior citizen, proceedings under the Act cannot be revived for fresh adjudication, although an earlier order suffering from violation of natural justice remains amenable to judicial scrutiny.
Summary: The dispute arose from the cancellation of a registered transfer deed executed by a grandfather in favour of his grandson. The Maintenance Tribunal, acting under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, cancelled the deed after proceeding ex parte against the grandson, who was residing in Belgium. Service had been attempted through publication in a newspaper circulating in Punjab, without establishing compliance with the prescribed procedure.
The High Court observed that Rule 5 of the Punjab Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2012, read with Order V CPC, mandates due service before proceeding ex parte. Relying upon Rabindra Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab, (2008) 7 SCC 663, and Neerja Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. Janglu, (2018) 2 SCC 649, the Court held that publication at an ancestral address does not constitute valid substituted service when the person is known to reside abroad. A temporary visit to India also does not establish actual and voluntary residence at the ancestral village.
The Court distinguished procedural recall from substantive review, holding that the Tribunal retains jurisdiction to recall an ex parte order where the condition precedent of due service was not fulfilled. It further held that the subsequent death of the senior citizen neither validates an earlier illegal order nor permits revival of proceedings under the Act, which are personal to the senior citizen.
Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The High Court set aside the orders dated 19.11.2025 and 29.04.2026, whereby the transfer deed had been cancelled and the application seeking recall was dismissed, respectively. In view of the grandfather’s death, the proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act were declared abated without remand. The Court also directed consequential correction of revenue entries, including Mutation No. 2912, while leaving all substantive questions concerning the transfer deed, title, possession and succession open for adjudication under the general law.