GOODWILL INDIA LIMITED Vs. JAGIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :

(2.) THIS is an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on behalf of respondents I and 2 for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 3rd February, 1978 passed on an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. The applicants respondents 1 and 2 allege that the petitioner filed three petitions under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, (1) against the present respondent, (2) against Sardar Ajaib Singh and others and (3) against Sardar Kripal Singh and others, that Sardar Ajaib Singh informed them on 1st May, 1978 about the ex-parte order dated 3rd February, 1978, that they have not been residing at the addresses given in the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, that respondent No. 1 has been residing at his village Ram Pur, District Amritsar while respondent No. has been residing at Pheruman, District Amritsar, that no attempt was made by the petitioner to get the respondents served at their permanent addresses which were furnished by the applicants at the time when the alleged agreement was entered into for the purchase of vehicle on hire-purchase basis. The allegations contained in this application are denied by the petitioner alleging that the applications had always been in the knowledge of the present proceedings, that they have been evading service of summons and therefore the court rightly passed the order for substituted service on the application under Order 5 Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Petition under Section 20 was filed on 17th January, 1977. On 24th January, 1977 notice was ordered to be issued to the respondents for 2nd March, 1977. It. was reported that the respondents were out of station and the summons were returned unserved. On 7th March, 1977, fresh summons were ordered to be served upon the respondents, for 7th April, 1977. The summons were issued in the ordinary manner as well as by registered A.D. post. The summons sent in the ordinary manner were returned with the remark that the respondents were avoiding service and therefore the process-server pasted the summons. The summons sent by registered A.D. post were returned with the remark that the respondents were out of station. The report of the process-server is dated 31st Mach, 1977 while the report on the registered letters is dated 30th March, 1977. The result was that the respondents were not served for 7th April, 1977. Again summons were ordered to be sent to the respondents for 18th May, 1977 but the same were also returned with the remark that the respondents were out of station. On 20th May, 1977 the petitioner filed an application under Order 5 Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure for substituted service. On 19th July, 1977 the respondents were ordered to be served by publication in National Herald, for 7th September, 1977 Notice was published in the daily the 'National Herald' dated 4th September, 1977. In these circumstances, it is claimed by the applicants that there was no proper service and that they never had any knowledge of these proceedings.