Valid service of summons requires strict compliance; mere knowledge of suit cannot sustain an ex parte decree.

Effective service of summons requires strict compliance with Order V, including proper authentication and the court seal; a postal card lacking those features does not amount to valid service merely because the defendant knew of the suit. Knowledge of proceedings is not a substitute for service in law, and substituted or registered post service remains valid only if it satisfies the prescribed requirements. On that basis, the ex parte decree could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the summons was served in accordance with law so as to sustain the ex parte decree and refuse relief under Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: Service of summons must conform to the statutory requirements of Order V Rule 1, including signature by the judge or authorised officer and the court seal. Where the ordinary mode of service is found unsatisfactory, substituted service may be ordered under Order V Rule 20, but any alternate mode must still amount to a valid summons. A postal card that does not itself bear the judge's authority and the court seal does not satisfy the legal requirement merely because the defendant may have had knowledge of the suit. Knowledge of the proceedings is not a substitute for effective service, and registered post, in the circumstances of this case, could only be supplementary.

Conclusion: The summons was not served in accordance with law, and the ex parte decree could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: Effective service of summons requires strict compliance with the prescribed form and authentication, and mere knowledge of the suit cannot replace valid service.

---