HAKAM SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IS the trial Court justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-petitioner qua defendant No. 3 in consequence of the failure of the plaintiff to pay/deposit publication charges ?

(2.) VISHWA Nath Chadha-defendant No. 3 was ordered to be summoned by the trial Court. Reading of the impugned order shows that several opportunities were granted to the plaintiff-petitioner for furnishing his correct address so that summons is issued. Ultimately, the case was adjourned enabling the plaintiff to file publication charges so that service could be effected by way of publication in the newspaper. Possibly, on account of failure of the plaintiff-petitioner to deposit the publication charges, the suit qua defendant No. 3 was dismissed under Order 9, Rule 2, CPC on 7.3.1990. The plaintiff moved an application for setting aside this order, but the same was dismissed. Hence, the revision petition.

(3.) SHRI S.S. Mahajan, learned counsel contended that persistent efforts were made by the petitioner to get the service elected upon defendants, but defendant No. 3 could not be served. It is admitted that there was default on the plaintiff's part in non-compliance of the order, but it is also stated that Vishwa Nath Chadha has no existing right or interest in the suit property because the petitioner has purchased the mortgagee rights after making full payment to him, therefore, defendant No. 3 is not interested in the proceedings pending before the trial Court.