Valid service before ex parte decree: alleged service on a gumastah was insufficient without proof of compliance.

An ex parte decree could not be sustained where personal service was not shown and the alleged service was only on a purported gumastah. The court held that once the defendant showed non-personal service, the party relying on service had to affirmatively prove compliance with Order V Rule 12 or Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code. Service on a gumastah, without further inquiry or proof of authority and validity, was insufficient. The order refusing to set aside the ex parte decree was set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision on due service and the validity of the decree.

---

---

Issues: Whether the ex parte decree could be sustained when service was allegedly effected on a gumastah and there was no material to show compliance with the requirements governing substituted or non-personal service.

Analysis: The petitioner was only required to show that he was not duly served. Once it was admitted that he had not been personally served and the service relied upon was on a person said to be his gumastah, the service was not prima facie valid. In that situation, the respondent had to explain how such service satisfied the requirements of Order V, Rule 12 or Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code. The lower Court erred in treating service on a gumastah as sufficient without further inquiry.

Conclusion: The order refusing to set aside the ex parte decree was and was set aside. The petition was directed to be re-admitted and disposed of after full inquiry, in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The matter was sent back for fresh decision on the question of due service and the validity of the ex parte decree.

Ratio Decidendi: Where personal service is not shown and the alleged service is on a purported agent, the validity of service must be affirmatively established before an ex parte decree is allowed to stand.

---