Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) At the request of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard and decided.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that though there are summons lying in the Court file of the Trial Court wherein it has been shown that the summons were personally served upon the Appellants/Defendants No. 2 and 3 but in fact, it appears from the alleged signature of the Defendants No. 2 and 3 that those are not the signatures of the Defendants No. 2 and 3 for which the learned Counsel for the appellants has shown the certified copy of the summons. According to learned Counsel for the appellants alleged signatures are the names of appellants Ram Lal and Syam Lal which is clear from the comparison of the words "Ram Lal" and "Shyam Lal" on their respective summons with the writing of the process server wherein also the names of Ram Lal and Shyam Lal are written. It appears that both the names on summons written at two places are from the same handwriting. It is also submitted that Order 5 Rule 8 CPC has not been complied with for service of the respondents.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently submits that the appellants are bona fide purchasers of the property in question and they are in possession. There would not have been any reason for them to not to contest the suit wehre the property involved is immovable property. It is also submitted that there may be some omission in the statement of the appellants but in totality of the fact situation. It is clear that only once efforts were made to serve the summons upon the appellants. It is also pointed out that summons were also sent by registered post but they returned back. The Court below merely proceeded on the fact that the addresses mentioned in the summons are the correct addresses but at this time ignored the fact that if mere correct addresses on the summons was so important, then there was no reasons for return of the registered post by which the summons were sent for service upon the defendants. It is also submitted that the Court below should have taken a liberal approach looking to the totally of the facts where the appellants have not avoided the service. The Court below should have made some more efforts fos personal service of the appellants.;