Jiwan Dass(Since Deceased) Through His Lrs vs Vijai Kumar And Others

CR-1599-2024 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
( 267 )
CR-1599-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 03.11.2026
JIWAN DASS(SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS
… Petitioner
Versus
VIJAI KUMAR AND OTHERS
... Respondents
-.-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. Akshay Kumar Goel, Advocate
for the petitioner.
None for the Respondents.
-.-
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)
1. The present revision petition has been preferred under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of
this Court, to assail the order dated 08.12.2023 passed by the Additional
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuh, whereby the petitioner-plaintiff No.
6(ii)’s application under Order V Rule 20 read with Section 151 CPC,
seeking substituted service of respondent-defendant No. 1 through
newspaper publication, was dismissed.
2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 08.12.2023, whereby
the Trial Court dismissed the application under Order V Rule 20 read with
Section 151 CPC seeking substituted service of respondent-defendant No.
1 through newspaper publication. The suit, instituted in 1991, had been
adjourned sine die owing to the inability to furnish his correct address.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.03 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CR-1599-2024 (O&M) -:2:-
Despite repeated efforts, the petitioner claims to have been unable to trace
him and contends that substituted service ought to have been permitted.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Trial
Court had adopted an unduly restrictive approach in dismissing the
application under Order V Rule 20 read with Section 151 CPC. It was
submitted that despite repeated and bona fide efforts, the petitioner had
been unable to ascertain the correct address of respondent-defendant No.
1, whose whereabouts remained untraceable. It was further pointed out
that, in earlier proceedings involving the same defendant, ordinary service
had also proved unsuccessful, necessitating substituted service by way of
publication. Learned counsel argued that the petitioner had furnished the
only available address, as reflected in the General Power of Attorney dated
18.06.1991 and the sale deed dated 11.09.1991. In these circumstances, the
Trial Court ought to have permitted substituted service through newspaper
publication in accordance with Order V Rule 20 CPC, rather than allowing
the proceedings to remain indefinitely stalled.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and, with his
able assistance, having meticulously scrutinised the paper-book, this Court
finds that the impugned order suffers from an unduly restrictive approach
warranting interference.
4.1. The record reveals that the suit has remained pending since
1991, primarily on account of the inability to secure service upon
respondent-defendant No. 1. Despite repeated efforts, the petitioner has
been unable to ascertain his current whereabouts and has furnished the
only address available in the General Power of Attorney dated 18.06.1991
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.03 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CR-1599-2024 (O&M) -:3:-
and the sale deed dated 11.09.1991. Significantly, in the connected
proceedings, ordinary service upon the same defendant had also proved
unsuccessful, compelling the Court to resort to substituted service,
thereafter he was proceeded against ex parte.
4.2. Order V Rule 20 CPC empowers the Court to direct
substituted service where it is satisfied that the defendant is keeping out of
the way to evade service or that, for any other reason, summons cannot be
served in the ordinary manner. In Smruti Pahariya vs. Sanjay Pahariya,
2009(13) SCC 338 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court underscored that
substituted service cannot be ordered mechanically and must be preceded
by the Court’s independent satisfaction regarding the existence of the
statutory conditions. The said principle was reiterated in M/s. Neerja
Realtors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Janglu (Dead) through Legal Representative,
2018(2) SCC 649 , wherein the Court emphasised the necessity of due
application of mind before resorting to this exceptional mode of service.
4.2. In the facts of the present case, the prolonged history of the
litigation, the repeated unsuccessful attempts at ordinary service and the
experience in the connected proceedings sufficiently warrant
reconsideration of the petitioner’s request. The Trial Court ought not to
have allowed the proceedings to remain indefinitely stalled merely
because the petitioner could not furnish a fresh address, without duly
considering the material placed on record.
4.3. Consequently, the impugned order dated 08.12.2023 is set
aside and the application under Order V Rule 20 read with Section 151
CPC is allowed. The Trial Court shall effect substituted service upon
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.03 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CR-1599-2024 (O&M) -:4:-
respondent-defendant No. 1 through publication in a newspaper having the
requisite circulation, in accordance with law, and thereafter proceed with
the suit. The present petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.
5. It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined
strictly to the adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceedings
and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the
underlying dispute. Such observations shall neither prejudice nor influence
the rights, claims or contentions of either party in the main proceedings or
any other proceeding.
6. In view of the final disposal of the principal matter, all
pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly. No further orders are warranted in this regard.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL )
03.11.2026 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.03 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document