Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2.5 Necessary issues were framed by the trial Court and it was held that the Wills were not proved as per law. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed on 04.11.2009 and 06 branches of Amar Nath were held entitled to 1/6th share each in the suit properties.

3.1 All the defendants except defendant No.6- Gurmeet Kaur moved an application under Order 9 Rule13 CPC on 24.04.2010 for setting aside the ex parte orders against them passed from time to time and also the ex parte judgment and decree dated 04.11.2009. They pleaded that they had not been served in accordance with law. Various circumstances were pointed out, as to how report was received on the summons and that their given addresses were incorrect at which they were not residing and despite direction by the Court, their correct addresses were not filed and so, they were wrongly proceeded ex parte on the basis of substituted service of publication. It was also pleaded that they had come to know about the ex parte judgment and decree only on 23.04.2010 and so, had moved the application on 24.04.2010 for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree.

checked and registered. Now notice of the same be given to the defendants for 4.1.2004 on filing of PF etc. File taken up today as 4.1.2004 is Sunday. So the case is 02.01.2004 adjourned to 11.03.2004 for the same proceedings. All concerned be informed accordingly.

11.03.2004 PF etc. not filed. The same be filed with two days and then defendants be summoned for 11.6.2004 Case received by way of transfer. It be checked and registered. 11.06.2004 A perusal of the case file shows that earlier when the case fixed for 4.1.2004, defendants No.1,4, 5 and 6 were not served and their summons were received back unserved. Summons to defendants No.1 and 6 were received back with report of incorrect address. Summons of defendants No.2 and 3 were not received back either served or unserved. Now fresh summons or to defendant No.1 and 6 are ordered to be issued for 28.09.2004 on filing of correct address and PF etc. and fresh summons to defendant No.2 to 5 are ordered to be issued for the date fixed on filing of PF etc. PF etc. not filed. The same be filed with two days and then 6 of 23 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:106122 SAO No.14 of 2014 2024:PHHC: 106122 defendants be summoned for 11.6.2004.

File taken up today as I am availing earned leave from 24.08.2004 25.08.2004 to 01.10.2004. Now case is adjourned to 11.12.2004 for cause already fixed. All concerned be informed accordingly.

Notice issued to defendants No. 1, 2, 4 & 5 received back 11.12.2004 unexecuted, whereas notice issued to the defendant No.6 received back with report of incorrect address. Notice to defendant No.3 could not be issued for want of copy of plaint. Now fresh notices to defendants be again issued for 19.02.2005 on filing of correct address for defendant No.6 and copy of plaint for defendant No.3 etc. Notice issued to defendant No.4 and 5 received back duly 19.02.2005 served but none has appeared on behalf of the defendants No.4 &5 despite repeated calls. Hence, they are proceeded.

8. Perusal of all the orders as above, would reveal that on 11.06.2004, on the summons meant for defendants No.1 and 6, the report was received that given addresses were incorrect. Summons of defendants No.2 and 3 were not received back served or unserved and, therefore, the Court ordered for filing of the correct addresses of defendants No.1 and 6 and then issuance of the fresh summons to all the defendants on filing of the necessary process fee etc., within two days. As per order dated 11.12.2004, notices sent to defendants No.1, 2, 4 and 5 were received back unexecuted; notice to defendant No.6 was received back with the report of incorrect address; whereas notice to defendant No.3 was not issued for want of copy of the plaint and so, fresh notices were directed to be issued for 19.02.2005 on filing of correct address for defendant No.6 etc. Although, it was noticed in the earlier order dated 11.06.2004 that addresses of respondents No.1 and 6 were incorrect, but there is nothing on record to suggest that the plaintiffs ever filed the correct addresses of these defendants. Even in the order dated 11.12.2004, it is mentioned that notice sent to defendant No.6 was received with the report of incorrect address; whereas the notices to the other defendants No.1, 2, 4 and 5 were received unexecuted. Though the Court ordered for filing of the correct address of defendant No.6 only, there is nothing in this order dated 11.12.2004 to show that Court asked for filing the correct addresses of defendant No.1. As per the next order dated 19.02.2005, defendants No.4 and 5 (Smt. Harbhajan Kaur and her minor son Arvinder) were proceeded ex parte, as both of them had been duly served; and fresh notices to the remaining defendants were directed to be issued for 05.05.2005. Notices were not received back as per order dated 05.05.2005 and as per order dated 25.08.2005, notice sent to defendant No.1 was again received back with the report of incorrect address. It was also noticed that correct address of defendant No.6 had not been filed. The Court asked the plaintiffs to file the correct addresses of defendant No.1 and 6 and further directed to issue fresh summons to defendants No.2 and 3 for 21.09.2005.