Court holds newspaper publication cannot replace ordinary summons unless statutory conditions are strictly met; suit restored for fresh hearing.
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed an ex parte judgment and decree passed in a specific performance suit after finding that the defendants were not duly served with summons in accordance with law. Justice Farjand Ali held that substituted service through newspaper publication under Order V Rule 20 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) is an exceptional measure and can be ordered only after the court records proper judicial satisfaction that ordinary service is impracticable or deliberately evaded.
The appeal was filed by Kanta Devi and others against the order of the District Judge, Churu, which had rejected their application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC seeking to set aside the ex parte decree dated 23 August 2017. The original suit had been filed by Parsaram for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land.
According to the High Court, the process server’s report did not show that the defendants had refused service or were deliberately avoiding summons. Instead, it indicated that the house was locked and that Kanta Devi was residing in Jaipur, with a further clue that she lived in Shankar Vihar Colony. The Court observed that this information should have prompted further efforts to serve the defendants at their actual address, rather than immediately resorting to newspaper publication.
Justice Farjand Ali emphasized that publication in a newspaper is not an end in itself. It is valid only if the chosen newspaper has meaningful circulation in the locality where the defendant resides or is likely to receive notice. The Court found no material showing that the trial court had considered this aspect or had examined whether the publication was reasonably calculated to bring the suit to the defendants’ attention.
The High Court also noted that the suit involved valuable rights in immovable property, including a direction for execution of a sale deed and a perpetual injunction. In such matters, the court must exercise special caution before proceeding ex parte. Since the record did not establish due service or actual notice to the appellants, the ex parte proceedings could not be sustained.
Allowing the appeal, the High Court set aside both the District Judge’s order dated 29 August 2024 and the ex parte judgment and decree dated 23 August 2017. The suit has now been restored to its original number and to the stage it stood on 16 November 2013. The appellants have been directed to appear before the trial court and file their written statement within 60 days of appearance.
The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the question of service and would not affect the merits of the plaintiff’s claim for specific performance.
Bottom Line :
Substituted service under Order V Rule 20 CPC requires judicial satisfaction of statutory conditions. Failure to establish deliberate evasion of service or impracticability of ordinary service renders the substituted service invalid.
Statutory provision(s): Order IX Rule 13 CPC, Order V Rule 20 CPC, Section 151 CPC
Kanta Devi v. Parsaram, (Rajasthan) : Law Finder Doc id # 2985629
