Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1292 (HP)

Rajesh Kumar v. Kamla Devi

2019-09-03

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged order dated 19.02.2019, passed by the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, Solan-I in CMA No. 1-S/6 of 2015, vide which, an application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CPC) for setting aside ex-parte award, dated 19.06.2009, passed against him in MACT Petition No. 3/-S/2 of 2006, stands dismissed. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that a claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle, Act 1988 by respondents No. 1 to 3 herein on account of death of husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondents No. 2 and 3, who died in an accident on 6.10.2004 involving the bus bearing registration No. HP 16- 1095 owned by the appellant which accident was caused on account of negligent driving of the driver, who also died in the accident. 3. The petition was allowed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, on 19.06.2009 by awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 13,10,000/- to the claimants alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. The onus to pay the compensation amount was fixed upon the appellant on the ground that the offending bus was having no valid insurance with the insurance company at the time of accident. This award was passed ex parte against the appellant. 4. For the purpose of setting aside of said ex parte award, an application was filed by the appellant under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC inter alia on the ground that he was never served in the claim petition and was erroneously proceeded against ex parte by the learned Tribunal. It was mentioned in the application that no summon was received by him for appearing before the learned Tribunal and the report of the Process Server, dated 23.10.2017 qua his service was false and signatures upon the same were not his signatures. It was also mentioned in the application that on 20.11.2014 appellant came to know through his brother that warrants stood issued against him and upon receipt of the said information, when he made inquiry, he came to know that an ex-parte award stood passed against him by the learned Tribunal. 5. It was also mentioned in the application that on 20.11.2014 appellant came to know through his brother that warrants stood issued against him and upon receipt of the said information, when he made inquiry, he came to know that an ex-parte award stood passed against him by the learned Tribunal. 5. The application was resisted by the non-applicants on the ground that it was incorrect that appellant did not receive any summon in the claim petition or that report dated 23.10.2017 was false and did not contain the signature of the applicant. It was mentioned in the reply that not only in the claim petition, subsequently in Execution Petition also the appellant was duly served on more than one occasion, yet he chose not to appear before the Tribunal and therefore averments in the application that he came to know on 20.11.2014 through his brother about some warrants having been issued against him, were completely incorrect averments. On these grounds, non applicants prayed for rejection of the application. 6. The application was dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide impugned order, which stands assailed by way of the present appeal. While dismissing the application, learned Tribunal held that from evidence adduced on record, applicant had miserably failed to establish that he was not served in the claim petition and simple denial that notice Ext. RW1/A does not contains his signatures was of no help, in the absence of any corroborating evidence. Learned Tribunal held that statement of RW-1 (Process Server) clearly demonstrated that applicant was duly served and no evidence was led by the applicant to rebut what was stated by the Process Server. Learned Tribunal further observed that in the course of his cross-examination, a suggestion was put to Process Server by the learned counsel of the applicant that summon was not accompanied by a copy of petition which suggestion was admitted by the Process Server, which also demonstrated that version of the applicant that no notice was served upon him was incorrect. On these basis, learned Tribunal rejected the application filed by the applicant. 7. Feeling aggrieved by this order, applicant has preferred this appeal. 8. Mr. On these basis, learned Tribunal rejected the application filed by the applicant. 7. Feeling aggrieved by this order, applicant has preferred this appeal. 8. Mr. Ashok K. Tyagi, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the order passed by the learned Tribunal is not sustainable in the eyes of law, because findings arrived at by learned Tribunal that there was a valid service of notice in the claim petition upon the appellant were a perverse findings as no notice was ever served upon the petitioner. He has argued that the report of the Process Server was incorrect, because the notice did not contain the signatures of the petitioner and the Process Server had forged the signatures of the applicant. According to the learned counsel, learned Tribunal erred in disbelieving the version of the appellant simply on the ground of a suggestion which was given to RW-1, as on the basis of suggestion which was so given, it could not be presumed that there was a valid service of summons upon the appellant. He has further argued that even if it is to be presumed that notice Ext. RW1/A was duly served upon the appellant, yet service of said notice in the absence of claim petition being appended with the same, was no notice in view of the provisions of Order 5, Rule 2, CPC. On these basis, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that impugned order was liable to the set aside and the ex parte award passed against the appellant, was also liable to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Sudhir Thakur, learned Sr. Counsel for the respondents has argued that there is no infirmity with the impugned order because learned Tribunal has rightly held that the petitioner had miserably failed to demonstrate that he was not duly served in the claim petition. Mr. Thakur has argued that contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was in fact self contradictory, perhaps for the reason that the appellant himself is not sure as to what plea he should take before this Court. Mr. Thakur has argued that contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was in fact self contradictory, perhaps for the reason that the appellant himself is not sure as to what plea he should take before this Court. He has argued that on one hand the appellant has taken the plea that his signatures were forged on the notice purportedly served upon him in the claim petition, but, in the same breath appellant was also taking the stand that if it was presumed that notice was duly served upon the petitioner, yet the service of said notice was not proper service in view of the provisions of Order 5, Rule 2 of the Code. According to Mr. Thakur, the latter plea taken by the appellant demolished the former plea taken by him. He has further argued that even if it is to be presumed that notice served upon the petitioner did not accompany copy of the claim petition, this did not confer any right upon the petitioner not to appear before the Tribunal because, any prudent litigant would have had appeared before the Tribunal and made a request for supply of the copy of the petition, to enable him to submit his response to the petition. On these basis, he has submitted that the present appeal is without any merit and the same be dismissed. 10. I have learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order as well as record of the case. 11. I will deal with all the points urged by learned counsel for the appellant hereinafter. (a) The summon issued to the appellant in the claim petition is on record as Ext. RW1/A. A perusal of the same demonstrates that the same was issued by the learned Tribunal on 23.10.2007 returnable for 27.11.2007. On the reverse of the said summon, there is a note of the Process Server in which it is mentioned that copy of the notice in original was served upon respondent Rajesh Kumar on 6.11.2007 and in lieu of the service of the said notice, his signatures were obtained on the summon. As per the appellant this report of the Process Server is a false report, because summon was never served upon him and his signatures on the same are also forged. Process Server Sh. Chander Mohan entered the witness box as RW-1. As per the appellant this report of the Process Server is a false report, because summon was never served upon him and his signatures on the same are also forged. Process Server Sh. Chander Mohan entered the witness box as RW-1. In his examination in chief, this witness deposed that he was serving as a Process Server in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division Nahan in the year 2007. He served the summon on Rajesh Kumar Chauhan S/o Sh. Gopal Singh Chauhan for 27.11.2007, which summon was served by him personally upon Sh. Rajesh Kumar. In his cross-examination, he stated that in the year 2007, he was posted both in Nahan and Rajgarh. He further stated that alongwith summon which was served upon Rajesh Kumar, copy of the claim petition was not appended. He denied the suggestion that for the purpose of service of the summon, he neither visited Nohradhar nor the summon was served upon Mr. Rajesh Kumar. He also denied the suggestion that forged signatures of Sh. Rajesh Kumar were obtained by him. Thus, one thing which is clear from the perusal of summon Ext. RW1/A as also the statement of Process Server Sh. Chander Mohan, RW-1 is that this witness has in unambiguous terms stated that summons were duly served personally upon Sh. Rajesh Kumar. This Court has no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Process Server, because the appellant has not placed any material on record to create any doubt or suspicion over the veracity of the statement so made by the Process Server. As far as the alleged forgery committed by the Process Server is concerned, on a pointed query of this court, learned counsel for the appellant submited that no action either penal or otherwise, was initiated by the appellant against the Process Server for allegedly forging his signatures upon the summons. In these circumstances, the only conclusion which can be drawn by this Court is this that the version of the appellant that he was not served during the pendency of the claim petition by way of summons Ext. RW1/A and that his signatures were forged upon the said Exhibit by the Process Server, is just a concocted story which has neither any genesis nor any edifice. (b) The second contention of the appellant that a simple suggestion put to Process Server RW-1 to the effect that notice Ext. RW1/A and that his signatures were forged upon the said Exhibit by the Process Server, is just a concocted story which has neither any genesis nor any edifice. (b) The second contention of the appellant that a simple suggestion put to Process Server RW-1 to the effect that notice Ext. RW1/A was not accompanied by any claim petition is not sufficient to disbelieve the contention of the appellant that no summon was ever served upon him, in my considered view, is meritless. In fact here is a case where the petitioner wants to sail in two boats. On one hand he takes the stand that no summon was served upon him. But when Process Server enters the witness box and states that he personally served summons upon the appellant, a suggestion is put in cross-examination to the Process Server that the summon did not accompany any claim petition. Further while arguing the case a third plea was taken by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the absence of notice being accompanied by a claim petition, the service of said notice was not valid in view of the provisions of Order 5, Rule 2, of the Code. When the stand of the appellant specifically was that no notice was ever served upon him by the Process Server, there was no occasion for the appellant to have had given a suggestion to the Process Server that the notice was not accompanied with copy of claim petition. In fact, by putting the said suggestion, the appellant has impliedly conceded that notice/summon was duly served upon him, though it was not accompanied by claim petition. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the suggestion was innocuous, is liable to the rejected because in my considered view, this suggestion itself proves the fact that the appellant was duly served in the claim petition. (c) As far as third contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, i.e. non-compliance of provisions of Order 5, Rule 2, CPC, the same has been dealt with in detail by the learned Court below in the order impugned. (c) As far as third contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, i.e. non-compliance of provisions of Order 5, Rule 2, CPC, the same has been dealt with in detail by the learned Court below in the order impugned. Yet, I would hastly like to add that if the summon served upon the appellant was not accompanied by a copy of the claim petition, this did not render the service, per se bad in law and its effect was not as if the claimants were bound to take fresh steps for the service of the appellant. At the most, non accompanying of the copy of claim petition could have conferred a right upon the appellant to have had appeared before the learned Tribunal below and pray for extension of time to respond on the ground that the copy of the petition has not been supplied to him. However, the same cannot be stretched to the extent of coming to the conclusion that service of a summon upon a party in the absence of claim petition etc. accompanying the same is to be treated as no service upon the party. In this regard, I am strengthened by the judgment of Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of this Court titled Punjab National bank Vs. Ram Chand Dhall and others., (1996) 2 ShimLC 449 in which Hon'ble Court has held as in para No. 5 as under:- "5.... No doubt, in law the plaint has to accompany the summons issued by the court under order 5, Rule 2, CPC so as to ensure that there is proper service in accordance with law and at the same time non-accompanying of the copy of plaint is not such an illegality which may call for setting aside the ex parte decree. At the most it is an irregularity in service of summons. This position is clear from the second proviso added to Order 9, Rule 13 by CPC (Amendment) Act, 1976 which came into force w.e.f. Ist February, 1977. In this case, it is admitted case of the plaintiff that he was made aware by his daughter, Veena. The purpose of issuing summons by the court is to appraise a party of the pendency of the proceedings in a particular lis before a court. In this case, it is admitted case of the plaintiff that he was made aware by his daughter, Veena. The purpose of issuing summons by the court is to appraise a party of the pendency of the proceedings in a particular lis before a court. The intention of adding second proviso to Order 9, Rule 13 CPC, which came into force w.e.f. 1-2-1977, appears to be salutary that after a party is made known about a date of hearing then by appearing in court a grievance could be made regarding non-supply of copy of the plaint. Otherwise simple because copy of plaint did not accompany the summons would unnecessarily result in delaying the matter. It may not be out of place to mention that provisions of Order 5 regarding service of summons in a list have to be read in conjunction with the provisions of Order 9 of the Civil Procedure Code..." 12. In view of the above discussion, as this Court finds neither any infirmity nor any perversity with the impugned order, this petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. 13. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents/claimants has argued that the execution petition is pending adjudication since the year 2009. It goes without saying that an endeavour shall be made by the learned Executing Court to execute the award passed by the learned Tribunal as expeditiously as possible and preferably by 31.12.2019. JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged order dated 19.02.2019, passed by the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, Solan-I in CMA No. 1-S/6 of 2015, vide which, an application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CPC) for setting aside ex-parte award, dated 19.06.2009, passed against him in MACT Petition No. 3/-S/2 of 2006, stands dismissed. 2. District Judge, Solan-I in CMA No. 1-S/6 of 2015, vide which, an application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CPC) for setting aside ex-parte award, dated 19.06.2009, passed against him in MACT Petition No. 3/-S/2 of 2006, stands dismissed. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that a claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle, Act 1988 by respondents No. 1 to 3 herein on account of death of husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondents No. 2 and 3, who died in an accident on 6.10.2004 involving the bus bearing registration No. HP 16- 1095 owned by the appellant which accident was caused on account of negligent driving of the driver, who also died in the accident. 3. The petition was allowed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, on 19.06.2009 by awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 13,10,000/- to the claimants alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. The onus to pay the compensation amount was fixed upon the appellant on the ground that the offending bus was having no valid insurance with the insurance company at the time of accident. This award was passed ex parte against the appellant. 4. For the purpose of setting aside of said ex parte award, an application was filed by the appellant under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC inter alia on the ground that he was never served in the claim petition and was erroneously proceeded against ex parte by the learned Tribunal. It was mentioned in the application that no summon was received by him for appearing before the learned Tribunal and the report of the Process Server, dated 23.10.2017 qua his service was false and signatures upon the same were not his signatures. It was also mentioned in the application that on 20.11.2014 appellant came to know through his brother that warrants stood issued against him and upon receipt of the said information, when he made inquiry, he came to know that an ex-parte award stood passed against him by the learned Tribunal. 5. The application was resisted by the non-applicants on the ground that it was incorrect that appellant did not receive any summon in the claim petition or that report dated 23.10.2017 was false and did not contain the signature of the applicant. 5. The application was resisted by the non-applicants on the ground that it was incorrect that appellant did not receive any summon in the claim petition or that report dated 23.10.2017 was false and did not contain the signature of the applicant. It was mentioned in the reply that not only in the claim petition, subsequently in Execution Petition also the appellant was duly served on more than one occasion, yet he chose not to appear before the Tribunal and therefore averments in the application that he came to know on 20.11.2014 through his brother about some warrants having been issued against him, were completely incorrect averments. On these grounds, non applicants prayed for rejection of the application. 6. The application was dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide impugned order, which stands assailed by way of the present appeal. While dismissing the application, learned Tribunal held that from evidence adduced on record, applicant had miserably failed to establish that he was not served in the claim petition and simple denial that notice Ext. RW1/A does not contains his signatures was of no help, in the absence of any corroborating evidence. Learned Tribunal held that statement of RW-1 (Process Server) clearly demonstrated that applicant was duly served and no evidence was led by the applicant to rebut what was stated by the Process Server. Learned Tribunal further observed that in the course of his cross-examination, a suggestion was put to Process Server by the learned counsel of the applicant that summon was not accompanied by a copy of petition which suggestion was admitted by the Process Server, which also demonstrated that version of the applicant that no notice was served upon him was incorrect. On these basis, learned Tribunal rejected the application filed by the applicant. 7. Feeling aggrieved by this order, applicant has preferred this appeal. 8. Mr. Ashok K. Tyagi, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the order passed by the learned Tribunal is not sustainable in the eyes of law, because findings arrived at by learned Tribunal that there was a valid service of notice in the claim petition upon the appellant were a perverse findings as no notice was ever served upon the petitioner. He has argued that the report of the Process Server was incorrect, because the notice did not contain the signatures of the petitioner and the Process Server had forged the signatures of the applicant. According to the learned counsel, learned Tribunal erred in disbelieving the version of the appellant simply on the ground of a suggestion which was given to RW-1, as on the basis of suggestion which was so given, it could not be presumed that there was a valid service of summons upon the appellant. He has further argued that even if it is to be presumed that notice Ext. RW1/A was duly served upon the appellant, yet service of said notice in the absence of claim petition being appended with the same, was no notice in view of the provisions of Order 5, Rule 2, CPC. On these basis, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that impugned order was liable to the set aside and the ex parte award passed against the appellant, was also liable to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Sudhir Thakur, learned Sr. Counsel for the respondents has argued that there is no infirmity with the impugned order because learned Tribunal has rightly held that the petitioner had miserably failed to demonstrate that he was not duly served in the claim petition. Mr. Thakur has argued that contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was in fact self contradictory, perhaps for the reason that the appellant himself is not sure as to what plea he should take before this Court. He has argued that on one hand the appellant has taken the plea that his signatures were forged on the notice purportedly served upon him in the claim petition, but, in the same breath appellant was also taking the stand that if it was presumed that notice was duly served upon the petitioner, yet the service of said notice was not proper service in view of the provisions of Order 5, Rule 2 of the Code. According to Mr. Thakur, the latter plea taken by the appellant demolished the former plea taken by him. According to Mr. Thakur, the latter plea taken by the appellant demolished the former plea taken by him. He has further argued that even if it is to be presumed that notice served upon the petitioner did not accompany copy of the claim petition, this did not confer any right upon the petitioner not to appear before the Tribunal because, any prudent litigant would have had appeared before the Tribunal and made a request for supply of the copy of the petition, to enable him to submit his response to the petition. On these basis, he has submitted that the present appeal is without any merit and the same be dismissed. 10. I have learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order as well as record of the case. 11. I will deal with all the points urged by learned counsel for the appellant hereinafter. (a) The summon issued to the appellant in the claim petition is on record as Ext. RW1/A. A perusal of the same demonstrates that the same was issued by the learned Tribunal on 23.10.2007 returnable for 27.11.2007. On the reverse of the said summon, there is a note of the Process Server in which it is mentioned that copy of the notice in original was served upon respondent Rajesh Kumar on 6.11.2007 and in lieu of the service of the said notice, his signatures were obtained on the summon. As per the appellant this report of the Process Server is a false report, because summon was never served upon him and his signatures on the same are also forged. Process Server Sh. Chander Mohan entered the witness box as RW-1. In his examination in chief, this witness deposed that he was serving as a Process Server in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division Nahan in the year 2007. He served the summon on Rajesh Kumar Chauhan S/o Sh. Gopal Singh Chauhan for 27.11.2007, which summon was served by him personally upon Sh. Rajesh Kumar. In his cross-examination, he stated that in the year 2007, he was posted both in Nahan and Rajgarh. He further stated that alongwith summon which was served upon Rajesh Kumar, copy of the claim petition was not appended. He denied the suggestion that for the purpose of service of the summon, he neither visited Nohradhar nor the summon was served upon Mr. Rajesh Kumar. He further stated that alongwith summon which was served upon Rajesh Kumar, copy of the claim petition was not appended. He denied the suggestion that for the purpose of service of the summon, he neither visited Nohradhar nor the summon was served upon Mr. Rajesh Kumar. He also denied the suggestion that forged signatures of Sh. Rajesh Kumar were obtained by him. Thus, one thing which is clear from the perusal of summon Ext. RW1/A as also the statement of Process Server Sh. Chander Mohan, RW-1 is that this witness has in unambiguous terms stated that summons were duly served personally upon Sh. Rajesh Kumar. This Court has no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Process Server, because the appellant has not placed any material on record to create any doubt or suspicion over the veracity of the statement so made by the Process Server. As far as the alleged forgery committed by the Process Server is concerned, on a pointed query of this court, learned counsel for the appellant submited that no action either penal or otherwise, was initiated by the appellant against the Process Server for allegedly forging his signatures upon the summons. In these circumstances, the only conclusion which can be drawn by this Court is this that the version of the appellant that he was not served during the pendency of the claim petition by way of summons Ext. RW1/A and that his signatures were forged upon the said Exhibit by the Process Server, is just a concocted story which has neither any genesis nor any edifice. (b) The second contention of the appellant that a simple suggestion put to Process Server RW-1 to the effect that notice Ext. RW1/A was not accompanied by any claim petition is not sufficient to disbelieve the contention of the appellant that no summon was ever served upon him, in my considered view, is meritless. In fact here is a case where the petitioner wants to sail in two boats. On one hand he takes the stand that no summon was served upon him. But when Process Server enters the witness box and states that he personally served summons upon the appellant, a suggestion is put in cross-examination to the Process Server that the summon did not accompany any claim petition. On one hand he takes the stand that no summon was served upon him. But when Process Server enters the witness box and states that he personally served summons upon the appellant, a suggestion is put in cross-examination to the Process Server that the summon did not accompany any claim petition. Further while arguing the case a third plea was taken by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the absence of notice being accompanied by a claim petition, the service of said notice was not valid in view of the provisions of Order 5, Rule 2, of the Code. When the stand of the appellant specifically was that no notice was ever served upon him by the Process Server, there was no occasion for the appellant to have had given a suggestion to the Process Server that the notice was not accompanied with copy of claim petition. In fact, by putting the said suggestion, the appellant has impliedly conceded that notice/summon was duly served upon him, though it was not accompanied by claim petition. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the suggestion was innocuous, is liable to the rejected because in my considered view, this suggestion itself proves the fact that the appellant was duly served in the claim petition. (c) As far as third contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, i.e. non-compliance of provisions of Order 5, Rule 2, CPC, the same has been dealt with in detail by the learned Court below in the order impugned. Yet, I would hastly like to add that if the summon served upon the appellant was not accompanied by a copy of the claim petition, this did not render the service, per se bad in law and its effect was not as if the claimants were bound to take fresh steps for the service of the appellant. At the most, non accompanying of the copy of claim petition could have conferred a right upon the appellant to have had appeared before the learned Tribunal below and pray for extension of time to respond on the ground that the copy of the petition has not been supplied to him. However, the same cannot be stretched to the extent of coming to the conclusion that service of a summon upon a party in the absence of claim petition etc. However, the same cannot be stretched to the extent of coming to the conclusion that service of a summon upon a party in the absence of claim petition etc. accompanying the same is to be treated as no service upon the party. In this regard, I am strengthened by the judgment of Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of this Court titled Punjab National bank Vs. Ram Chand Dhall and others., (1996) 2 ShimLC 449 in which Hon'ble Court has held as in para No. 5 as under:- "5.... No doubt, in law the plaint has to accompany the summons issued by the court under order 5, Rule 2, CPC so as to ensure that there is proper service in accordance with law and at the same time non-accompanying of the copy of plaint is not such an illegality which may call for setting aside the ex parte decree. At the most it is an irregularity in service of summons. This position is clear from the second proviso added to Order 9, Rule 13 by CPC (Amendment) Act, 1976 which came into force w.e.f. Ist February, 1977. In this case, it is admitted case of the plaintiff that he was made aware by his daughter, Veena. The purpose of issuing summons by the court is to appraise a party of the pendency of the proceedings in a particular lis before a court. The intention of adding second proviso to Order 9, Rule 13 CPC, which came into force w.e.f. 1-2-1977, appears to be salutary that after a party is made known about a date of hearing then by appearing in court a grievance could be made regarding non-supply of copy of the plaint. Otherwise simple because copy of plaint did not accompany the summons would unnecessarily result in delaying the matter. It may not be out of place to mention that provisions of Order 5 regarding service of summons in a list have to be read in conjunction with the provisions of Order 9 of the Civil Procedure Code..." 12. In view of the above discussion, as this Court finds neither any infirmity nor any perversity with the impugned order, this petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. 13. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents/claimants has argued that the execution petition is pending adjudication since the year 2009. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. 13. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents/claimants has argued that the execution petition is pending adjudication since the year 2009. It goes without saying that an endeavour shall be made by the learned Executing Court to execute the award passed by the learned Tribunal as expeditiously as possible and preferably by 31.12.2019.