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 summons was duly served by substituted service so as to sustain the ex parte decree, and whether the defendant was entitled to have that decree set aside.
Analysis: Service in person was not effected, and the case did not fall within service on an agent empowered to accept service. The attempted substituted service was held invalid because the serving officer did not use all due and reasonable diligence to find the defendant. The summons was taken to the defendant's place of business under a mistaken assumption that it was his residence, and affixture there, without proper enquiry or real effort to locate him at the place where he ordinarily resided, did not satisfy the requirements of the Code. Mere probability that the defendant had knowledge of the suit was insufficient when formal service had not been proved in the manner required by law.
Conclusion: The summons was not duly served, and the ex parte decree could not stand. The application to set aside the decree was entitled to succeed.
Ratio Decidendi: Substituted service is valid only when the serving officer, after using all due and reasonable diligence, cannot find the defendant, and strict compliance with the prescribed mode of service is essential before an ex parte decree can be sustained.