Defective service of summons justified setting aside ex parte proceedings and restoring the party's chance to be heard.

Defective service of summons and denial of a fair opportunity justified setting aside the ex parte order and the refusal to restore participation. The HC held that personal service must ordinarily be attempted where practicable, and substituted service or affixation is valid only when due attempts at personal service fail and the record shows proper procedural compliance. As the process-server and postal reports did not establish reliable tender, service on an adult family member, or the necessary particulars for substituted service, the ex parte proceedings could not stand. Suspected avoidance of service did not outweigh the need to avoid condemning a party unheard, so the appellant was allowed to contest the suit on costs.

---

---

Issues: Whether the ex parte order and the order refusing to set aside the ex parte proceedings were liable to be set aside for defective service and denial of proper opportunity to the appellant.

Analysis: Service of summons must ordinarily be effected personally where practicable, and substituted service can be justified only when due attempts at personal service fail. The reports of the process server and postal authorities did not show a reliable personal tender of summons to the appellant or proper service on an adult member of the family. The reports also lacked material particulars required for substituted service and affixation, including clear endorsement by the persons allegedly served and the necessary recording of circumstances. While there were circumstances creating suspicion that the appellant was avoiding service, the Court balanced that consideration against the need to avoid condemning a party unheard. In the circumstances, the proper course was to restore participation on terms rather than sustain the ex parte order.

Conclusion: The ex parte order and the order dismissing the application to set aside ex parte proceedings were set aside, and the appellant was permitted to participate in the suit on payment of costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A party should not be denied participation in proceedings unless service of summons is shown to have been effected in accordance with the procedural safeguards governing personal, substituted, and affixation service, and the Court may set aside ex parte proceedings in favour of substantial justice even where avoidance of service is suspected.

---