Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the writ of summons was duly served in accordance with Order 5, Rules 12 and 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the ex parte decree was liable to be set aside under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Analysis: Personal service is the normal rule wherever practicable. Service by affixation is permissible only when the statutory conditions are satisfied, including reasonable efforts to effect personal service and, under the Calcutta amendment, a basis for concluding that the defendant was absent from his residence and was not likely to be found there within a reasonable time. The process-server merely visited the defendant's residence on three occasions during business hours, called out his name, made no meaningful enquiry as to his availability, and did not attempt service at the business premises or at a time when the defendant could reasonably be expected to be found at home. Such perfunctory attempts did not satisfy the requirement of due service.
Conclusion: The service was not duly effected, and the defendant was entitled to have the ex parte decree set aside.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, and the ex parte decree was annulled for want of valid service.
Ratio Decidendi: Affixation of summons can validly substitute personal service only after reasonable efforts have been made to effect personal service and the statutory conditions for substituted service are strictly established.