1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No.2665 of 2025 13th October, 2025 Yaqoob Siddiqui --Petitioner Versus Dehradun Premier Motors Private Ltd. & another --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff. Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/plaintiff has challenged the order dated 22.11.2023, passed by the 5th Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun, whereby an application preferred by the respondents/defendants under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC has been allowed, as well as the judgment and order dated 25.08.2025, passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Dehradun in Civil Revision No. 05 of 2024, Yaqoob Siddiqui vs. Dehradun Premier Motors Private Ltd., whereby the revision-petition filed against the order dated 22.11.2023 was dismissed and the said order was affirmed. 2. The facts of the case are that Original Suit No. 462 of 2018 was instituted by the petitioner/plaintiff against the respondents/defendants in the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun for recovery of rent and damages. Summons were issued to the 2 respondents/defendants. It transpires from a perusal of the writ petition record that the said summons were served upon the respondents/defendants by way of refusal. The learned trial court proceeded ex parte against the respondents/defendants, and subsequently, the suit was decreed ex parte vide judgment and decree dated 03.02.2021. 3. It is the case of the respondents/defendants that they received notice of the execution on 03.04.2021, and immediately inquired with the office, but due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 03.02.2021 was moved later on, on 30.08.2021. The said application was registered by the learned trial court as Misc. Case No. 73 of 2021, Dehradun Premier Motors Private Ltd. & Another vs. Yaqoob Siddiqui. It was specifically pleaded by the respondents/defendants in the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC that none of the summons were actually served upon them and, further, there was no witness to the alleged refusal as mentioned in the summons. 4. The learned trial court found favour with the explanation given by the respondents/defendants for their non-appearance in the original suit and, consequently, the ex parte judgment and decree was set aside by judgment dated 22.11.2023. The petitioner/plaintiff challenged the judgment and order dated 22.11.2023 by filing Civil Revision No. 05 of 2024, Yaqoob Siddiqui vs. Dehradun Premier Motors Private Ltd., which too was rejected by the learned revisional court vide judgment and order dated 25.08.2025, affirming the 3 order of the trial court. These judgments and orders are also under challenge in the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submitted that the summons were served upon the respondents/defendants at their office on two occasions, and on both occasions, they refused to accept service. Therefore, service was sufficient in terms of Order 29 Rule 2 CPC. He further submitted that applications had been moved by the respondents/defendants under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for examination of the process server and postman, which were rejected by the learned trial court. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submits that the alleged refusal of service has not been substantiated by any independent witness. He points out that the summons do not mention the name of any person before whom the refusal took place, nor do they record the name or designation of any individual from the company who is alleged to have refused service. Therefore, the alleged service by refusal is unsupported and cannot be treated as valid in the eyes of law. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders, this Court is of the view that no prejudice would be caused if the lis between the parties is decided on merits after hearing both sides. The reasons assigned by the learned trial court as well as the revisional court are quite convincing and do not warrant interference. Further, this Court does not find any jurisdictional or procedural error in the impugned judgment and orders, and therefore declines to invoke its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4 8. Since the suit was filed in the year 2018 and has already been delayed on account of the ex parte proceedings against the respondents/defendants, it is deemed appropriate that the trial court be directed to expedite the hearing of the suit. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned trial court to decide Original Suit No. 462 of 2018 as expeditiously as possible, but in any case, not later than one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 10. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 13.10.2025 AK