V K CONSTRUCTIONS WORKS LTD Vs. ABDUL KHALIQUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order dated 6th July, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A. No. 317/2005 filed by appellant No.3, I.A. No. 1091/2005 filed by appellants No. 1, 2 & 4 and I.A. No. 1271 filed by appellant No. 5, under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC in original suit bearing CS(OS) No. 2433 of 1996. Vide impugned order, learned Single Judge dismissed the applications, filed by the appellants for setting aside the ex-parte decree passed in favour of respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) and against appellants and respondents No. 2 to 4.

(2.) The brief chronology of facts and events resulting to the filing of the present appeal are that respondent No. 1 filed the aforesaid civil suit for recovery of Rs.14,89,325/- against defendants No. 1 to 9. Defendants No. 1 to 3 are the appellants No. 1 to 3, defendant No. 6 is appellant No. 4 and defendant No. 7 is appellant No. 5. The other defendants viz defendants No. 4, 5 and 8 are arrayed as respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 in the present appeal. Defendant No. 1 (appellant No. 1 herein) is a Public Limited Company, defendant No. 2 (appellant No. 2 herein) is the Chairman and defendants No. 3, 6 and 7 (appellants No. 3 to 5) are directors of the appellant No. 1 company. In the plaint, the residential addresses of defendants No. 7 and 9 were furnished and they were duly served at those addresses. The Chandigarh office address was also stated to be the residential address of the Chairman and some other Directors. Defendants No. 1, 2, 7 and 9 were served, but other defendants remained unserved despite issuance of summons at all the given addresses, including the two project sites at Bombay. At the instance of the plaintiff, the name of defendant No. 9 was struck off from the array of the parties. Defendants No. 1, 2 and 7 did not appear despite service and as no written statement was filed on their behalf, their right to file the same was closed.

(3.) Since defendants No. 3 to 6 and 8 remained repeatedly unserved, the Joint Registrar, vide order dated 24th March, 1999 directed them to be served through publication in daily newspaper under Order 5 Rule 20 CPC. All the defendants were served by publication in Indian Express Delhi and Chandigarh edition dated 28th July, 1999, and since they did not appear, they were proceeded ex-parte. Plaintiff (respondent No. 1) filed evidence by way of affidavit and, thereafter, an ex-parte decree was passed against the defendants.