Strict compliance with service by affixture rules was required before execution sale limitation consequences could bind the judgment-debtor.

Service by affixture in execution proceedings was treated as effective only on strict compliance with Order V, Rule 19 CPC, including verification of the return by affidavit or examination of the serving officer on oath. The Court also treated the requirement of an express declaration of due service as mandatory, holding that silence or a mechanical endorsement was insufficient where the consequence was to bind the judgment-debtor to the shorter limitation period for challenging the execution sale. Strict observance of these safeguards was necessary before constructive notice and limitation consequences could follow, and the sale was therefore liable to be set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether non-compliance with Order V, Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 made service of summons ineffective in execution proceedings; (ii) Whether the Court was required to make an express declaration that the summons had been duly served before the judgment-debtor could be bound by the shorter limitation period for challenging the execution sale.

Issue (i): Whether non-compliance with Order V, Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 made service of summons ineffective in execution proceedings.

Analysis: Order XLVIII, Rule 2 made the mode of service for notices in execution proceedings depend on the rules applicable to summons. The rule contemplated that where service by affixture was resorted to, the return had to be verified by affidavit or, failing that, the serving officer had to be examined on oath. The Court treated these safeguards as mandatory because they were intended to ensure real service before a judgment-debtor could be proceeded against in his absence.

Conclusion: Non-compliance with the first part of Order V, Rule 19 rendered the service ineffective.

Issue (ii): Whether the Court was required to make an express declaration that the summons had been duly served before the judgment-debtor could be bound by the shorter limitation period for challenging the execution sale.

Analysis: The Court held that the concluding part of Order V, Rule 19 also was mandatory. An implied declaration could not be safely inferred where the surrounding circumstances left doubt as to proper service, especially when the consequence was to confine the judgment-debtor to the shorter period under Article 166 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The proper course was for the record itself to show that the Court had applied its mind and expressly declared due service in some clear form.

Conclusion: An express declaration of due service was required and mere silence or mechanical endorsement was insufficient.

Final Conclusion: Strict compliance with Order V, Rule 19 was treated as a condition for fastening constructive notice and limitation consequences on the judgment-debtor, and the sale was therefore liable to be set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where service by affixture is relied on to sustain execution proceedings and to invoke the shorter limitation period for challenging the sale, the executing court must strictly comply with Order V, Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, including verification of the return or examination of the serving officer and an express declaration of due service.

---