Refusal of summons and reasoned first appeal requirements govern setting aside ex parte decrees and service objections.

Refusal of registered summons, followed by affixation and substituted service by publication, raises a rebuttable presumption of due service, and that presumption can be displaced only by reliable evidence. On the facts described, allegations of fraud and collusion were unsupported, so no sufficient cause was shown to set aside the ex parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. The first appellate court must independently examine the trial court's material findings and give reasons for disagreement under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC; a cryptic reversal without addressing service, limitation, and sufficient cause was inadequate and unsustainable. The ex parte decree was restored and the application remained rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether refusal of summons and substituted service justified treating the wife as duly served and whether sufficient cause was made out to set aside the ex parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) Whether the High Court, as the first appellate court, erred in reversing the trial court without addressing the material findings and without following the requirements of Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): Whether refusal of summons and substituted service justified treating the wife as duly served and whether sufficient cause was made out to set aside the ex parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Service of summons by registered post carries a presumption of due service when the cover is returned with an endorsement of refusal, and that presumption can be displaced only by reliable evidence. Here, the record showed repeated refusal of summons, service by affixation, and substituted service by publication, while the allegations of fraud and collusion were unsupported by material evidence. The applicant also failed to establish sufficient cause for non-appearance or to rebut the presumption arising from the postal refusal and the other modes of service.

Conclusion: The wife was duly served and no sufficient cause was shown to justify setting aside the ex parte decree.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court, as the first appellate court, erred in reversing the trial court without addressing the material findings and without following the requirements of Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The first appellate court was required to independently consider the material issues, examine the trial court's findings, and give reasons for disagreement. The High Court did not deal with the crucial findings on service, limitation, and absence of sufficient cause, and instead relied on matters not relevant to the disposal of the application under Order IX Rule 13. Such a cryptic approach fell short of the duty cast on the first appellate court.

Conclusion: The High Court's order could not be sustained and was liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The ex parte decree was restored, and the wife's application under Order IX Rule 13 remained rejected; the appellant also secured ancillary monetary relief directed by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A refusal endorsement on registered summons and proper substituted service raise a rebuttable presumption of due service, and a first appellate court must independently meet the trial court's material findings with reasoned analysis before disturbing them.

---