Ramanpreet Singh vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK on 30 May 2019

MA 44 of 2019 Punjab National Bank Vs. Ramanpreet Singh & Anr.

30.05.2019 Item No.14 Present: Advocate Jyoti Sareen, Counsel for the Applicants.

This Application has been filed by the Applicants/ Defendants No.1 and 2 for setting aside order dt.11.04.2019 vide which Applicants/Defendants were proceeded ex parte and RC dt.12.04.2019 was passed thereto.

The Counsel for the Applicants/Defendants argued that they came to know about passing of ex parte judge and RC dt.12.04.2019 on 23.04.2019 while inspecting the OA file. The contention of the Applicants/Defendants No.1 and 2 is that they never received any notice through registred post. It has been mentioned that after receiving copies of orders, it has been found that the address of the defendants mentioned in the notice as well as in the OA is wrong and incorrect (Ann.D1). Moreover, the Applicants/Defendants No.1 and 2 have also taken print out of tracking report of webesite of India Post whereby the report shows that still the services by registered post has not been served upon the defendants. The Counsel for the Applicants/Defendants has stressed that no notice was ever served upon the Applicants/ Defendants either dasti, through speed post or through registered post, therefore, the orders passed against the Applicants/ Defendants be recalled and MA be allowed.

Before the prayer of the Applicant could be considered, it has been found that the notice int his case was issued on 18.01.2019 to be returned by 11.04.2019. The Respondent/Applicant OA Bank had filed service report through registered post on the same address available to the Bank in their records provided by the Applicants/Defendants and the postal receipts have also been attached. The Counsel for the Applicants/Defendants has not denied that if the given address was nto correct the right address where now they are residing was ever provided to the Bank as nothing has been placed on record to prove their contention. Moreover, dasti notice has been duly received by Sh. Gurjit Singh, who is father of Def. No.1 and husband of Def. No.2 and residing at the same address. Meaning thereby that the service is complete through the adult male member of the family of Applicants/Defendants who was in communiction with his family members, along with postal receipts of the service through post which otherwise the Applicants/Defendants claim to have not been served, does not matter as the dasti service was an effective service.

Since in the light of the above, it is proved that the Applicants/Defendants were aware and had knowledge of pendency of suit as dasti service has been duly proved on record and the Applicants/Defendants had sufficient time to apper before the court but they did not appear. Moreover, the Applicants/Defendants have failed to prove that what prevented him to appear before the court. In such a case where the Applicants/Defendants having due knowledge of the pendency of the suit but still ignore the litigation, the Court cannot think of granting any relief to them. The law is otherwise very much clear as is crystalised by Hon’ble High Court in case of Ajita Sharma Vs. Rakesh Kumar Sharma (1999(1) Civil Court Cases 363 (P&H) and that by the Hon’ble DRAT in Swaran Singh Vs. Bank of Baroda (Appeal No.322 of 2019).

Hence, finding no merit, the MA is dismissed. File be consigned to record. (Harcharn Singh), Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chandigarh

30.05.2019/cms