1 2026:CGHC:4416 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBA No. 44 of 2014 1 - Smt. E. Kasturi Rao W/o Late E. Ashok Rao, Aged About 67 Years R/o Narmada Nagar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - E. Vinita Rao C/o A. Venu Prasad, I A S, R/o Qr. No. 906, Sector 39 A, Chandigarh Note In The Cause Title Of The Impugned Order, The Address Has Wrongly Been Mentioned, District : Chandigarh, Chandigarh 3 - Smt. Parvataneni Nandita, C/o Parvataneni Harish, I F S, Council General Of India, 5634 Briar Drive, Ambassy Of India, Huston, Texas 77056, U S A United State Of America Note In The Cause Title Of The Impugned Order, The Address Has Wrongly Been Mentioned, Chhattisgarh 4 - K. Rajita, 1003 Bukittimah Road /07/04, Tower- B/2, The Sterling, Singapore 596289 Note In The Cause Title Of The Impugned Order, The Address Has Wrongly Been Mentioned Smt. M. Kusumlata Rao, W/o M.J. Rao Died On 13/12/2012, Chhattisgarh 5 - Rajiv Thapar Husband Of Late Smt. Seema Rao, R/o Sterling Business Center, S-20 Green Park Extn., New Delhi- 110016, District : New Delhi, Delhi 6 - Ku. Aditi Thapar D/o Rajiv Thapar, R/o Sterling Business Center, S-20 Green Park Extn., New Delhi- 110016, District : New Delhi, Delhi 7 - Ku. Alisha Thapar D/o Rajiv Thapar, R/o Sterling Business Center, S-20 Green Park Extn., New Delhi- 110016, District : New Delhi, Delhi 8 - Ku. M. Laxmi Rao (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 21-10- 2024 NIRMALA RAO 2 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - E. Ramendra Rao S/o Late E. Nageswara Rao, Aged About 58 Years R/o Link Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants : Shri Prafull Bharat, Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Anil S. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate alongwith Ms. Shivangi Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 27.01.2026 1. The appellants, who were non-applicants before the Arbitrator have preferred the present appeal assailing the order passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur in MJC No.30 of 2012 dated 30.9.2014 whereby the petition filed by respondent No.1 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act of 1996’) was allowed. 2. Learned Senior Advocate would argue that during pendency of the petition filed under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, respondent No.5 namely Smt. M. Kusumlata Rao expired but her legal representatives were not substituted by the respondent and therefore, the order passed against the dead person is a nullity. He would further contend that the appellants were proceeded ex parte without service of notice. He would contend that appellant No.3 – Parvataneni Nandita is a resident of USA and appellant No.4 – K. Rajita is a resident of Singapore and notice was served on them through paper publication according to the provisions of Order 5 Rule 20 of CPC but at the same time, provisions 3 contained in Order 5 Rule 20(1) of CPC were not complied with. He would contend that receipts of service of notice contain forged signatures of appellants No.1 & 2. He would submit that as there was no proper service of notice upon the appellants herein, the order dated 30.9.2014 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 3. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent would oppose. He would submit that the appellants were party before the arbitrator and they participated in the arbitration proceedings but when the petition under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 was filed, they failed to appear despite service of notice and therefore, rightly proceeded ex parte. He would submit that the notices were served upon the appellants at the addresses provided by them, no application was moved for correction of address. He would submit that the learned Court below has rightly allowed the petition preferred by the respondent under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 and that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection. 5. A perusal of the documents placed on record would show that the Arbitral award dated 27.2.2007 and the supplementary award dated 22.5.2007 were passed in the presence of both the parties. ARBA (PR) No.2591 of 2007 was preferred which remained pending for a considerable period and was subsequently withdrawn on 24.1.2012 with liberty to avail remedy available under the law. Thereafter, a petition under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 was filed. In the said petition, the respondent mentioned the addresses of the appellants as residents of Bilaspur, Delhi and Chandigarh. During the pendency of 4 the petition, some of the appellants shifted to United States of America and Singapore but no application was moved for correction of their address. As the notices could not be served upon the appellants, who were residing abroad, an application seeking substituted service of notice through paper publication was moved, which was allowed. 6. Order 5 Rule (20)(1) of CPC deals with Substituted Service. This provision states that if there is reason for the Court to believe that the defendant is keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service, or that for any other reason the summons cannot be served in the ordinary way, the Court shall order the summons to be served by affixing a copy thereof in some conspicuous place in the Court-house, and also upon some conspicuous part of the house (if any) in which the defendant is known to have last resided or carried on business. In the present case, the learned Court below, without following the procedure prescribed under Order 5 Rule 20 (1) of CPC, passed order for service of notice through paper publication. 7. It is also informed that during pendency of the petition under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, M. Kusumlata Rao who was respondent No.5 before learned Court below, expired and no steps were taken by the respondent herein for substitution of her legal representatives and consequently, the order was passed against a dead person. It is a well-settled principle of law that any decree, award or order passed against a dead person is a nullity. 8. Taking into consideration the fact that the order was passed by the learned Court below under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 against a dead person and that summons were not duly served in accordance with the provisions of Order 5 Rule 17 and Order 5 Rule 20 of CPC, 5 therefore, the order passed by the learned District Judge Bilaspur dated 30.9.2014 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the said Court to decide it a afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to all interested parties. 9. The parties shall appear before the learned Court below on 11.3.2026. The record be sent forthwith. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi