JUDGMENT
S.D. Pandit, J.
(1) This application is filed by the original respondent No. I/Judgment Debtor No. I Manjit Singh under order Ix Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts giving rise to the present application could be briefly stated as under:
(2) M/S.CHARAT Singh & Co. is a Motor Financier and he has financed the present applicant in order to purchase a motor vehicle but as the applicant and his guarantor Sukhdev Singh, respondent No. 2 in the original proceeding, had failed to pay the amount, as per agreement between the parties the dispute between them was to be referred to an Arbitrator, he filed Civil Suit No. 529A/87 for appointment of an Arbitrator. The said suit was decreed and Arbitrator was appointed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. The Arbitrator entered upon the reference on 12.8.1988 and passed an Award on 23.4.1990. He then filed the Award in this Court on 17.5.1990. On the strength of filing of the said Award Suit No. 1676A/90 was registered in this Court.
(3) Notices of filing of Award and to file objections, if any, to the same were issued to both the respondents on 24.5.1990. Though many attempts were made to serve the present applicant respondent No. 1, Manjit Singh, all those attempts to serve him by regular process had failed and, therefore, a prayer for substituted service under Order V Rule 20 by publication of the suit summons in the local daily was made and the same was allowed. Inspite of that service the present applicant did not appear before the Court. Therefore, Court proceeded ex-parte and decree making the Award the Rule of the Court was passed on 29.5.1992.
(4) Thereafter, decree holder had also started execution proceeding to execute the said decree and, thereafter, the present application is filed by the Judgment Debtor on 2.2.1994.
(5) If the averments made in the said application filed by Judgment Debtor Manjit Singh are read then it would be quite clear that the application has made claim of passing an Award against him by the Arbitrator ex-parte without due provision of law and principles of natural justice. It is alleged and contended by the applicant in his application as well as affidavit filed in support of this application that the Arbitrator had proceeded ex-parte against the applicant/Judgment Debtor No. I and gave the ex-parte Award on 23.4.1990 on the basis of the reference dated 12.7.19.88. He has nowhere made any claim regarding the proceeding before this Court in this Suit No. 1676A/90 in which an ex-parte decree is passed against him. The record of the suit clearly shows that though the notices of the filing of the Award and the objections were issued to the present applicant on repeated occasions, they could not be served as it was always reported that the applicant was out of station. The record shows that respondent No. 2 in the suit was duly served.
(6) The present applicant is serving in Crompton Greaves. He is an educated person and though the pr(x:ess server was going to his office he was always informed that the present applicant had gone out of office for office work. Sometime he was told that he had gone out of Delhi when the notices were taken art his residence and, thus, the applicant managed to avoid the service. Ultimately his notice was published in the local daily ‘Statesman’. Under the law service by publication in the local newspaper is a valid service and when the plaintiff was aware of the proceeding between him and the financier, as an ordinary prudent man he must be keeping watch and he must have come to know about the said notice. When the process server was going to his office it is but natural that his colleagues must be telling him that the process server from the Court was coming to serve him.
(7) The applicant nowhere mentions in his application that he had made the necessary enquiries after the reference was made to the Arbitrator but he could not get any information regarding what has happened to the said reference. Only when in the execution proceeding an order of attachment of his pay has been passed and recovery has been made he has come before this Court with this application. In this application he does not say that the service by the Court to him was improper or illegal. He had only made the claim regarding the service of notice by the Arbitrator. The applicant has not shown any reasons for his failure to appear before the Court. I, therefore, hold that the present application deserves to be rejected. I reject the same but, in the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their respective costs.