JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. These writ petitions, which are primarily filed invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenges the two orders dated 21.05.2013 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Haridwar by which the appeal as well as the revision of respondent no. 3 were allowed, which was against the rejection of application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. by the trial court. 2. The present petitioner was plaintiff in a suit for specific performance which was filed against one Smt. Nirmala Devi (respondent No. 1 in the present writ petition) before the Civil Judge (J.D.), Haridwar. The case of the plaintiff/petitioner in the civil suit was that the said defendant - Smt Nirmala Devi had entered into an agreement dated 21.02.2006 with the plaintiff as per which about 75 percent of the consideration had already been given and remaining was to be given on 20.01.2007 on which the sale deed was executed. 3. Since, the defendant did not come forward to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff was constraint to file a suit for specific performance against the said defendant. During the pendency of the suit, however, Smt Nirmala Devi executed a sale deed of the same land in favour of one Shri Sukhveer Singh on 11.04.2007 and Shri Sukhveer Singh in turn sold that land by means of a registered sale deed dated 12.05.2010 to the vendee, who is present respondent no. 3, namely, Shri Ratan Singh. Respondent No. 3 claims to be bona fide purchaser of the land. During the pendency of the suit, he was also impleaded as defendant No. 3 in the suit. In the said suit defendant No. 1 has put his appearance, whereas defendant Nos. 2 and 3 (present respondent No. 3) never placed their appearance before the trial court. On 09.04.2012, the trial court ordered that the service against all the defendants is sufficient and order for ex-parte proceedings against them were passed. The suit itself was decreed on 18.04.2012. Respondent No. 3 moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. before the trial court on 05.07.2012. This application was rejected by the trial court on the grounds that there was no sufficient cause for setting aside the decree, and therefore, rejected the application of defendant No. 3 i.e. present respondent No. 3 vide order dated 21.01.2013. Respondent No. 3 moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. before the trial court on 05.07.2012. This application was rejected by the trial court on the grounds that there was no sufficient cause for setting aside the decree, and therefore, rejected the application of defendant No. 3 i.e. present respondent No. 3 vide order dated 21.01.2013. Against the said order, respondent No. 3 moved an appeal before the lower appellate court, which was allowed vide order dated 21.05.2013 by the 1st Additional District Judge, Haridwar. Against the said order the petitioner preferred this writ petition on which, learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 30.05.2013 stayed the order of the lower appellate court. 4. Meanwhile, the present petitioner on 21.05.2012 moved an application for execution on which notices were sent to all the defendants and the date was fixed for 31.05.2012. The execution court finds that the service is sufficient upon the defendants and thereafter proceeded ex-parte on 02.07.2012 and passed the order that the matter will proceed ex-parte against the defendants. Defendant No. 3 moved recall application on 05.07.2012 for recalling the order dated 02.07.2012, which was rejected on 21.01.2013 on the grounds that respondents were duly served. Against this order too respondent no. 3 preferred a revision, which too has been allowed vide order dated 02.05.2013. The plaintiff/petitioner has thus challenged the two orders by means of present writ petitions. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court to the various provisions of law, which are applicable in the present matter and has argued that all rights which accrue to respondent No. 3 are derived from the original vendor i.e. Mr. Sukhveer Singh. Sukhveer Singh himself has his rights, as given by Smt. Nirmala Devi, and there is no dispute that Nirmala Devi was duly served in the matter though even Sukhveer Singh was served in the present matter as well. The respondent was throughout aware of the proceedings. The first notice was sent by registered post on 11.03.2011. However, there is no noting on file as to whether the said notice was given to defendant No. 3 or not, nor any presumption was recorded. Moreover, the court did not find the said notice to be sufficiently served, and thereafter directed process server to serve the notice. 6. The first notice was sent by registered post on 11.03.2011. However, there is no noting on file as to whether the said notice was given to defendant No. 3 or not, nor any presumption was recorded. Moreover, the court did not find the said notice to be sufficiently served, and thereafter directed process server to serve the notice. 6. The counsel for respondent No. 3 challenges this very noting, and therefore, would argue that there was no service on defendant No. 3. His argument is primarily on the interpretation of Order 5 Rules 16, 17, 18 and 19 of C.P.C. Learned counsel would argue that in terms of Order 5 Rule 18 of C.P.C. in case, summons have been served under Order 5 Rule 16 C.P.C. i.e. by way of process server than under Order 5 Rule 19 C.P.C. such process server needs to be examined by the court before it comes to the conclusion that service is sufficient. Order 5 Rule 19 of C.P.C. reads as under:- “19. Examination of serving officer - Where a summons is returned under Rule 17, the Court shall, if the return under that rule has not been verified by the affidavit of the serving officer, and may, if it has been so verified, examine the serving officer on oath, or cause him to be so examined by anther Court, touching his proceedings, and may make such further enquiry in the matter as it thinks fit; and shall either declare that the summons has been duly served or order such service as it thinks fit.” 7. It is an admitted case that neither there is any affidavit of the process server nor was he examined by the court concerned before it came to the conclusion that notices have been served upon respondent No. 3. To that extent the finding of the Court that service was sufficient, in view of Order 5 Rule 17 is not correct. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner though has argued that no indulgence can be granted to respondent No. 3, as he is in any not case a bona fide purchaser of the property. Learned counsel would argue that the defendant No. 1 – Smt. Nirmala Devi had entered into a registered agreement of sale. The veracity of the registered document is not in doubt. Learned counsel would argue that the defendant No. 1 – Smt. Nirmala Devi had entered into a registered agreement of sale. The veracity of the registered document is not in doubt. He has been able to prove that he is always ready and willing to execute the sale deed, and therefore, the only outcome in such a rejection would be a decree in his favour for specific performance. 9. All these assertions of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court, particularly, about the bona fide of respondent No. 3 cannot be a presumption in law. All disputes, as far as possible must be adjudicated, after hearing all the parties concerned. In this case it has not been done. Moreover, the application of the defendant/respondent No. 3 under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. is not a belated application, but a prompt application filed within 90 days of the decree, a fact which has also been considered by the lower appellate court while allowing the appeal. Moreover, it is a consistent approach of this Court, based on the rulings of the Hon’ble Apex Court, which have come from time to time, holdings that what matters is that substantial justice must be done and whenever there is a clash between the substantial justice and technicalities, substantial justice must prevail. 10. All these facts have also been duly considered by the lower appellate court and the reasoning given by the lower appellate court while allowing the appeal of respondent No. 3 are sound reasoning. In view thereof, this Court finds no justification to interfere with the impugned order dated 21.05.2013 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Haridwar. 11. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are hereby dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to proceed in the matter expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to the parties. Learned counsel for the defendant No. 3 has informed this Court that they have filed their written statement in the matter and he also undertakes that he shall not be taken unnecessary adjournment in the matter.