Pamplu Devi vs. Sevati Devi & Anr. RSA No. 239 of 2009 17.07.2026 Present: Mr. Bhairav Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kanwar Bhupinder Singh, Advocate, for the proposed LRs No.1(a) to 1(g) nd 1(k) (i). Mr. Mohinder Verma, Advocate for respondent No.2(a). Mr. Aishwarya Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.1J(i) to 1J(iii). Proposed LRs No.1(h) (I) to 1(h) (vi), 1(i)(i) to 1(i)(iii) and 1(k) (ii) proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 11.07.2025. CMP No. 17296 of 2026 The present application has been filed for substituted service of respondent No. 1(i)(i) to 1(i)(iii) by way of publication in a local newspaper. It has been submitted that the notice(s) issued to respondents were returned with the report that no such persons were residing at the address mentioned in the notices. Consequently, service could not be effected by way of ordinary process. Therefore, the prayer has been made for effecting service through publication. Heard. Perusal of the record reveals that the notices issued to respondent No.1(i)(i) to 1(i)(iii) returnable for 14.11.2015, were received back with the report that the said respondents were not residing at the given address. Thereafter, fresh notice(s) were issued returnable for 08.05.2026 and these were returned with the report that the house was found locked and the whereabouts of the respondents were not known. It is apparent from the perusal of the record on the notices that their services could not be effected by way of ordinary services. It is further apparent that no alternative or correct address of the respondents has been furnished by the applicant. Thus, the service cannot be effected in a normal way. Hence, the respondent No.1(i)(i) to 1(i)(iii) are ordered to be served by way of publication in the daily newspaper “Amar Ujala”, on taking steps within seven days. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 17th July, 2026 (Nikita)