JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 31.05.2011 which is passed by the trial Court upon application filed by the petitioner-defendants No.19, 20, 21 and 23 of the suit No.34/07 (6/93) filed on 10.02.2010 under Order 9, Rule 7 , read with Section 151, C.P.C., by which, learned trial Court dismissed the said application. 2. As per facts of the case, respondent-plaintiffs preferred suit for partition and cancellation of sale-deed against the petitioners and other defendants in the year 1993. In the suit, as per the petitioners, summons were not issued till 1995 to the petitioner-defendants and, thereafter, no summons were served upon the petitioners, therefore, upon an application under Order 5, Rule 20 , C.P.C. for substituted service upon defendants No.10 to 20 and 23, notices were ordered to be served through publication. 3. The notices were published and petitioner-defendants along with other persons were directed to remain present before the Court on 04.02.1998; but, all the petitioners did not appear on 04.02.1998. The trial Court passed order to proceed ex parte against them. 4. After passing above order on 04.02.1998, learned trial Court proceeded further and after filing reply by other defendants on 08.10.2002, issues were framed and matter was placed for evidence. During pendency of the suit, some defendants died, therefore, their legal heirs were taken on record upon application filed by the plaintiffs.4A. After long delay, on 16.03.2010, an application was filed by the petitioner-defendants, in which, it is stated that no notices were served upon them because they are residing at Calcutta where one Bajrang Lal s/o Bhanwar Lal informed them on 01.02.2010 that suit is pending at Sujangarh against them, therefore, it is prayed that order to proceed ex parte may be quashed and defendants may be granted an opportunity to file written-statement and, therefore, the matter may be decided afresh. 5. 5. The learned trial Court after taking into consideration entire facts of the case rejected the application filed under Order 9, Rule 7 , C.P.C. observing that suit was filed in the year 1993 and for service upon the applicant-defendants notice was published in the news-paper and they were directed to remain present before the Court on 04.02.1998; but, they did not appear and, thereafter, the application has been filed narrating the fact that one Bajrang Lal s/o Bhanwar Lal, one of the defendants, informed them at Calcutta that this suit is pending in the Court. Learned trial Court in the rejection order has observed that such type of assertion cannot be accepted because against Bajrang Lal, after service when he did not appear before the Court, ex parte order was passed on 18.09.1996 against him; meaning thereby, the contention of applicant-defendants was rejected on the ground that in the suit filed by the plaintiffs, the address of the defendants is that of Sujangarh and, even in the application filed under Order 9, Rule 7 , read with Section 151, C.P.C. on 10.02.2010, the address of all the applicant petitioners is shown of Bidasar Tehsil Sujangarh; meaning thereby, in the application filed under Order 9, Rule 7 , C.P.C. it is nowhere stated that the applicants are residing since 1993 at Calcutta at particular place and what is their address of Calcutta. This application has been filed after 17 years, therefore, the trial Court rejected the application for the reason that for gross negligence and upon conduct of the petitioner-defendants the order of proceeding ex parte dated 04.02.1998 cannot be recalled and application filed under Order 9, Rule 7 , read with Section 151, C.P.C. was rejected. 6. This application has been filed after 17 years, therefore, the trial Court rejected the application for the reason that for gross negligence and upon conduct of the petitioner-defendants the order of proceeding ex parte dated 04.02.1998 cannot be recalled and application filed under Order 9, Rule 7 , read with Section 151, C.P.C. was rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order impugned is illegal and against the principles of natural justice and, so also, in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in Harbhajan Singh's case, reported in DNJ 2010 (3) Raj.) p.1139 and judgment of Hon'ble apex Court reported in AIR 1964 SC 993 , Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar & Another , the process adopted by the trial Court for service is totally erroneous and, in the interest of justice the trial Court ought to have considered the fact that service was not properly effected but, ignoring all the above facts, the trial Court rejected the application filed under Order 9, Rule 7 , C.P.C. erroneously. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance upon following judgments : (1) DNJ 1997 (Raj.) p.151 (2) DNJ 2008 (2) (Raj.) 790 (3) DNJ 2008 (2) (Raj.) 1104. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I have perused the entire pleadings of the case and documents on record. 8. First of all, it is required to be observed that there is no material on record to show where the defendant-petitioners were residing since 1993 to 2010 during pendency of the suit. The only assertion is made in the application filed under Order 9, Rule 7 , C.P.C. that they were informed by co-defendant Bajrang Lal s/o Bhanwar Lal on 01.02.2010 at Calcutta that instant suit is pending before the Court, in which, order for proceeding ex parte has been passed. In my opinion, upon perusal of the said application, it is revealed that the petitioner-applicants themselves again gave their address of Bidasar (Tehsil Sujangarh) and not of Calcutta. In my opinion, upon perusal of the said application, it is revealed that the petitioner-applicants themselves again gave their address of Bidasar (Tehsil Sujangarh) and not of Calcutta. The application filed by them is as follows : " izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr vkns'k 9 fu;e 7 o/kkjk 151 C.P.C. u0eq0 34@2007 vkxkeh rkjh[k 16-3-2010 U;k;ky; Jheku~ vij ftyk ,oa l= U;k;k/kh'k lqtkux<+ fot;flag vkfn cuke guqekuflag vkfn nkok foHkktu Jhekuth izfroknh la[;k 19] 20] 21 o 23 dh vksj ls izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr vkns'k 9 fu;e 7 C.P.C. o/kkjk 151 C.P.C. ds vUrxZr fuEu izdkj ls izLrqr gS%& 1- ;g fd mijksDr vuqokuh izdj.k esa vkxkeh rkjh[k is'k 16-3-2010 eqdZjj ftlesa fnukad 4-2-1998 ( pkj Qjojh mUuhl lkS vBkuos ) dks ge izfroknhx.k ds f[kykQ bdrjQk dk;Zokgh gks xbZA Jhekuth us ,drjQk dk;Zokgh ds vkns'k fn, Fks rFkk rkehy gsrq v[kckj esa izdk'ku Hkh djok;k Fkk ftldh lwpuk ge izfroknhx.k dks ugha gks ldhA 2- ;g fd fnukad 1-2-2010 ( ,d Qjojh nks gtkj nl ) dks ctjaxyky iq= Hkaojyky tkfr ukgVk fuoklh lqtkux<+ us dydrk vkdj gesa lwpuk nh fd vkids fo:) lqtkux<+ ds A.D.J. DksVZ esa ,d eqdnek py jgk gS rFkk mlesa ,d rjQk dk;Zokgh gks xbZ gS bl ij geus lqtkux<+ vkdj irk fd;k vkSj gesa bl eqdnesa dh tkudkjh gqbZA vc ge mijksDr izdj.k esa gkftj vkdj eqdnesa esa viuk i{k j[kuk pkgrs gSa vkSj mDr izdj.k vHkh rkehy gsrq gh yfEcr gS vnkyr okyk us ,slh dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh gS ftlls i=koyh dh LVst esa dksbZ vUrj vkrk gksA vr% izkFkZuk i= izLrqr dj Jheku~ th ls fuosnu gS fd fnukad 4-2-1998 ( pkj Qjojh mUuhl lkS vBkuos ) dh dk;Zokgh dks fujLr QjekbZ tkdj eqdnesa esa iSjoh djus gsrq btktr iznku djus dh d`ik djsA izkFkhZ@izfroknhx.k la[;k 19] 20] 21 o 23 deyflag iq= galjkt tkfr vksloky fuoklh chnklj cq/key iq= Jh Mqaxjey tkfr fla/kh fuoklh chnklj dsljhpUn iq= galjkt tkfr fla/kh fuoklh lqtkux<+/kuirflag iq= Jh galjkt tkfr cSaxkuh fuoklh chnklj Lo;a rFkk tfj;s vius odhy ,l Mh "In the suit also, the same address was mentioned by the plaintiff-respondents upon which notices were issued but when service was not effected upon the petitioner-defendants, then, notices were ordered to be published. In my opinion, there is gross negligence on the part of the petitioners because to make out a case the address of Howrah is mentioned in this writ petition but in the application filed under Order 9, Rule 7 , C.P.C. address of Bidasar is mentioned, so also, in the application there is no whisper that since 1993 up to 2010 the defendant-petitioners were residing at Calcutta. In view of the above facts, the petitioner-defendants who are purchaser of the property of the plaintiffs and defendants are not entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Contrition of India because from last 18 years, the suit is pending and this application has been filed on 10.02.2010 by the petitioner-defendants No.19, 20, 21 and 23 after near about 12 years of passing of the order to proceed ex parte against them without any cogent reasons, therefore, the case of the petitioners cannot be considered at par with the facts of the cases cited by learned counsel for the petitioners. 9. Argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that before passing order for service through publication the notices were to be sent through registered post but no notices were sent through registered post is bereft of merit. In my opinion, there is no substance in the argument of petitioner-defendants because they themselves are guilty of ignoring the service and filing application without any cogent reasons under Order 9, Rule 7 , C.P.C. Therefore, none of the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioners supports their case. Learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the applicant-defendants. 10. It is also worthwhile to observe that suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiffs for partition and petitioner-defendants are not members of the family. Their case is that they are purchasers of land sold by one of the defendant family members. Therefore, obviously the suit can be contested by the family members for their share in the property in question. 11. In this view of the matter, there is no force in this writ petition.This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******