SUKHCHAIN SINGH Vs. CHHINDA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dtd. 27/10/2021 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ferozepur, whereby the application of the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte order dtd. 3/12/2018 was dismissed. It is also prayed that the application of the petitioner/defendant No.2 for setting aside the ex parte order dtd. 3/12/2018 be allowed.

(2.) A perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner was defendant No.2 in the suit and he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dtd. 3/12/2018. Before proceedings ex-parte, the efforts were made to serve the petitioner. However, although the father of the petitioner, who is the defendant No.1 in the suit, was served, the notice could not be served upon the petitioner because he was disclosed to have left the village. Since even the parents of the petitioner had not given the address of the petitioner, therefore, munadi was got conducted in the area, where the property in dispute is situated. Since the petitioner did not appear despite munadi, therefore, he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dtd. 3/12/2018. The petitioner filed application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings, however, the same has been dismissed by the impugned order.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not served properly. Even the munadi was conducted in the area where the petitioner was not residing. Hence, the trial Court has wrongly rejected the application filed by the petitioner.