OM PRAKASH Vs. PRAKASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this writ petition has been filed before this court to abuse the process of the court without knowing anything about the law. A suit has been filed against the petitioner for eviction from the premises which was decreed by the Civil Court vide judgment and decree dated 9-7-1996. Being aggrieved, petitioner preferred the first appeal which was dismissed in default vide order dated 11-10-2000. Application for restoration was filed which was rejected by the first appellate court vide order dated 23-10-2002. Against that, the petitioner approached this court by filing a writ petition No. 3089 of 2003 and this court vide order dated 16-12-2003 allowed the writ petition, and restored the first appeal. Petitioner filed a copy of the said judgment/order before the first appellate court and in order to hear the appeal, notices were issued to the respondents therein. First time the matter was taken up before the first appellate court on 3-2-2004 and an application for amendment was preferred by the petitioner on 19-2-2004. Notices were issued to the respondents in the first appeal. However, one of the respondents remained unserved as the learned first appellate court was satisfied that one of the respondents therein could not be served the order dated 9-3-2004. Fresh notices were issued and as the same also could not be served and there was no report of servicer the learned first appellate court again passed the order on 25-3-2004 to issue fresh notice to the said respondents fixing the date as 24-4-2002 and when the matter was listed on 24-4-2004, the first appellate court was of the considered opinion that the said respondents had not been served, therefore, fresh notices were directed to be issued. The petitioner did not consider it proper to take any proper steps as per the order of the appellate court dated 24-4-2004, therefore, instead of dismissing the appeal in default or for non prosecution and particularly for non-compliance of the order dated 24-4-2004, the appellate court further issued notices to the said respondents on 12-5-2004.

(2.) petitioner filed an application that the unserved respondents be served by substituted service by publication in the local newspapers. However, the appellate court directed the service of notice by registered post for which steps were required.

(3.) petitioner does not disclose as to whether he has taken steps in pursuance of the order of the first appellate court dated 12-5-2004, and has filed the petition rajsing the grievance that his application for service by substituted mode has not been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not aware as under what provision application for substituted service is permissible and what are the circumstances for moving the application.