Substituted service requires recorded judicial satisfaction; it cannot be demanded as of right, and misuse of process may follow.

Substituted service under Order 5 Rule 20 CPC is available only when the court records satisfaction, on reasons and materials, that the respondent is evading service or cannot be served in the ordinary way. A litigant cannot demand substituted service as of right merely by filing an application. On the stated facts, the applicant had not complied with the appellate court's directions for service and sought to proceed according to personal convenience, which was treated as a misuse of judicial process. The writ petition was therefore characterised as an abuse of the process of the Court, and the request for substituted service was held not entertainable as a matter of right.

---

---

Issues: Whether substituted service could be sought as of right in the absence of recorded satisfaction that the respondent was evading service or could not be served in the ordinary way, and whether the writ petition was an abuse of the process of the Court.

Analysis: Order 5 Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits substituted service only when the Court is satisfied, on the basis of reasons and materials on record, that the defendant is keeping out of the way to avoid service or that service cannot be effected in the ordinary manner. A party cannot insist upon substituted service merely by making an application. On the facts, the petitioner had not shown compliance with the appellate court's directions for service and sought to compel the Court to proceed according to his convenience. Such a course was treated as wasting judicial time and as misuse of the court process.

Conclusion: The application for substituted service was not entertainable as a matter of right, and the writ petition was held to be an abuse of the process of the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Substituted service can be ordered only on recorded judicial satisfaction, based on materials showing ibility of ordinary service or evasion of service, and a litigant cannot demand it as a matter of right.

---