Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: RC ARC 391/25
Rajiv Rathi Vs. Raman Vij
10.11.2025
File is taken up on an application u/o 5 Rule 20 CPC.
Present: Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner.
It has been submitted that respondent No. 1 and 2 have not been
served and they are avoiding service of summons.
As per the report of the Process Server, summons could not be
served on respondent No. 1 Raman Vij and respondent No. 2 Puneet Vij since
the said persons were not found at the addresses mentioned in the summons.
However, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon certain
documents to show that the said respondents have themselves mentioned the
said address at which service was attempted. With respect to respondent
Raman Vij, reliance has been placed on page No. 68 of the petition which
contains an affidavit by Mr. Raman Vij in which the address mentioned is the
same address which is mentioned in the memo of parties.
Further, reliance has been placed upon the legal notice affixed on
page No. 33 of the petition which also contains the same address of
respondents Mr. Raman Vij and Mr. Puneet Vij as mentioned in the memo of
parties. The said legal notice was duly replied to by the Ld. Counsel of the
respondents and the said reply is affixed on page No. 51 of the petition. It has
been submitted that the said reply to the legal notice clearly reflects that the
address mentioned in the memo of parties is correct since without the said
address being correct, no reply could have been filed by the respondents Mr.
Raman Vij and Mr. Puneet Vij.
I agree with the aforesaid submission. The copy of affidavit on
record of Mr. Raman Vij along-with the reply to the legal notice prima-facie
shows that the address mentioned in the memo of parties is correct and the
said respondent is deliberately avoiding service of summons. Further, with
respect to the other respondent Mr. Puneet Vij, the reply to the legal notice on
Page No. 1/2
-- 1 of 2 --
record at page No. 51 also reflects that the address of the said respondent is
correct and he is also avoiding service of summons.
Therefore, in view of the submissions and after considering the
record it appears that summons could not be served upon the respondent No. 1
and 2 through ordinary mode and this court deems it appropriate to get the
service effected through the modes available u/o 5 Rule 20 (1) CPC and u/o 5
Rule 20 (1A) CPC.
Accordingly, the process server is directed that they shall affix
the summons at a conspicuous place of the house of the respondent No. 1 and
2 as well as at a conspicuous place in the Court house. Copy of the order-sheet
be annexed alongwith the process.
Further, let the respondent No. 1 and 2 be also served through
publication in the daily newspaper circulated in the locality where they were
last known to have resided or voluntarily carried on business or worked for
gain. Therefore, let summons be served through publication against
respondent No. 1 and 2 in the daily newspaper circulated in the locality where
the respondent No. 1 and 2 were last known to have resided, or voluntarily
carried on business or worked for gain, on filing of PF and depositing the
publication charges etc. by the petitioner, returnable for next date of hearing.
Let the steps be taken within one week from today.
Put up for report regarding service of summons for the date
already fixed i.e. 20.01.2026.
At request, dasti publication be given if desired.
At request, copy of this order be given dasti.
(Devanshu Sajlan)
CCJ-cum-ARC (Central)
THC/Delhi/10.11.2025
Page No. 2/2
-- 2 of 2 --