Punjab & Haryana HC: Ex-Parte Decree Set Aside as Proper Service of Summons Not Proved

Case Name: Karamjit Kaur & Anr. v. Sukhpal Singh & Ors.
Date of Judgment: January 10, 2020
Citation: Civil Revision No. 107 of 2020
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajbir Sehrawat

Held: The High Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the order of the Additional District Judge, Faridkot, which had set aside an ex-parte decree passed against the respondents. It held that although a judicial order recorded that the defendants were served and refused summons, there was no supporting material on record such as the copy of summons, process server’s report, or Ahalmad’s note confirming service or affixation. In the absence of such documentary evidence, the presumption of correctness could not attach to the trial court’s order. The lower appellate court had thus rightly allowed the respondents’ application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex-parte proceedings.

Summary: The petitioners argued that the trial court had rightly proceeded ex-parte against the defendants after they refused service, and that the lower appellate court erred in reversing this finding. They further claimed that the defendants had failed to disclose how they came to know of the ex-parte decree. The High Court, however, noted that the appellate court had specifically recorded that no copy of the summons or refusal report was on the judicial file, nor was there proof of substituted service such as affixation or munadi in compliance with CPC requirements. The Court also observed that the defendants had led positive evidence showing they were never served, and had explained that they came to know of the ex-parte decree through a relative of the plaintiffs. Hence, the petitioners’ arguments were unsustainable.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the revision petition, confirming the appellate court’s order setting aside the ex-parte decree and allowing the defendants’ application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.