BALBIRO AND OTHERS Vs. JAGDISH SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners-defendants are aggrieved of the dismissal of the application for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree, whereby statutory appeal of the respondent-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 21.09.1999 has been allowed, ex parte, on 22.07.2000, in essence, suit for mandatory injunction calling the petitioners-defendants to hand over the vacant possession of the property being licensee, has been decreed.

(2.) Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner(s) submits that respondent-plaintiff had instituted the suit seeking mandatory injunction for handing over the vacant possession of the suit property by branding the defendant as licensees, whereas categoric stand in the written statement was that the plaintiffs have not been able to establish the ownership, much less, they have not become the owner on account of the exchange and had been in possession for the last so many years. The trial Court dismissed the suit but when appeal filed, the summons were sent and as per report of the Process Server, witnessed by the Village Chowkidar, all the defendants refused to accept the service. On the basis of the aforementioned report, the Court ordered for service upon petitioner through Munadi. Munadi was done by Village Chowkidar only. When witness summoned, found that the Proclamator is none else but a same person. As a result thereof, the lower Appellate Court decreed the suit. The respondent-plaintiff sought the execution of the judgment and decree at the fag end i.e. when period of limitation was to expire. On receiving the notice of the execution petition, acquired the knowledge of the ex parte judgment and decree and moved an application but same, has erroneously, been dismissed.

(3.) He submits that the resorting to the procedure of munadi is not proper or effective service in the absence of recording of satisfaction but should have ordered for publication as there is already judgment and decree of the trial Court in favour of his client. He submits that his client is willing to argue the main appeal subject to any terms and conditions which this Court deem it appropriate.