Substituted service must strictly comply with CPC requirements before an ex parte decree can stand.

Substituted service under Order 5 Rule 20 CPC is valid only if the court first records satisfaction that the defendant is avoiding service or cannot be served in the ordinary way, and the statutory mode, including affixture in a conspicuous place in the court-house, is strictly followed. Where the record does not show such satisfaction or compliance, publication alone does not validate service. On that basis, rejection of an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside an ex parte decree was held unsustainable, and the challenge to the ex parte decree succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether an ex parte decree could be sustained where substituted service was ordered without recording the court's satisfaction and without directing affixture of summons in the court-house, and whether the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was wrongly rejected.

Analysis: Order 5 Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 requires the court to first record satisfaction that the defendant is avoiding service or that summons cannot be served in the ordinary way. It also requires service by affixture in a conspicuous place in the court-house, and where publication is ordered, the statutory mode must be followed strictly. The proceedings did not show that such satisfaction was recorded, nor that affixture in the court-house was ordered or carried out. Since the legality of substituted service depends not only on actual publication but also on a lawful order preceding it, the service could not be treated as valid. In those circumstances, the refusal to set aside the ex parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The rejection of the application to set aside the ex parte decree was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

---