Substituted service by publication upheld as effective notice, sustaining the ex parte order despite later postal service objection.

Substituted service by publication was treated as valid notice in Section 7 proceedings where the Tribunal directed publication under Order V Rule 20(2) CPC, an affidavit of service was filed, and the record showed completion of service. A later direction for registered post did not undo the legal effect of the completed substituted service. The challenge based on alleged non-service and postal-rule non-compliance failed because the materials also indicated awareness of the proceedings, including prior settlement efforts and related litigation, and the ex parte order was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the service of notice in the Section 7 proceedings was invalid for non-compliance with postal rules and whether the ex parte order could be sustained despite substituted service by publication.

Analysis: The challenge rested on alleged non-service and on Rule 208(1) of the Indian Postal Rules, 1933. The notice, however, was ultimately directed to be served by publication as substituted service under Order V Rule 20(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. An affidavit of service was filed and accepted by the Tribunal, and the record showed that service by publication had been completed. The subsequent direction for service by registered post did not negate the legal effect of the earlier substituted service. The record also reflected knowledge of the proceedings, including prior settlement efforts and related proceedings, which supported the inference that the appellant was aware of the case.

Conclusion: The service was held to be effective and the ex parte proceedings were sustained. The challenge based on alleged non-service failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where substituted service by publication is duly ordered and completed, accompanied by an affidavit of service and supporting circumstances showing knowledge of proceedings, the service is deemed effective and an ex parte order cannot be assailed merely on a subsequent insistence on fresh notice.

---