Isha Industries vs Parveen Mahajan
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 28.10.2026
Date of Decision: 05.11.2026
Date of Uploading: 05.11.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010017232026
+ CM(M) 168/2026 & CM APPL. 4310/2026
ISHA INDUSTRIES .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anubhav, Mr. Saurabh
Shekhar, Mr. Rohit Dayma and
Mr. Arindam Singh, Advs.
versus
PARVEEN MAHAJAN .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Gaurav Mahajan, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
J U D G M E N T
%
1. Through the present petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge
the orders dated 03.05.2025, 16.10.2025 and 24.12.2025. The learned
trial court vide order dated 03.05.2025 proceeded ex-parte against the
petitioner and vide order dated 16.10.2025 dismissed the petitioner‟s
application under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1
1908 . Further, vide order dated 24.12.2025, the learned trial court
dismissed the petitioner‟s review application under Order XLVII Rule
1 CPC against the order dated 16.10.2025.
2. The brief facts of the present case are as follows
3. The respondent/plaintiff has filed the underlying commercial
recovery suit on 12.09.2024 seeking Rs. 6,41,058/-. The underlying
suit arrayed 3 defendants viz. the petitioner/proprietorship as
1
Hereinafter “CPC”
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 168/2026 Page 1 of 13
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:05.11.2026
20:28:20
defendant no. 1, Isha Sharma, the proprietor, as defendant no.2 and 3.
As per the memo of parties in the underlying suit, Defendant nos. 1
and 2 had the same address being „J-11/86, Rajouri Garden, New
2
Delhi-110027 and peculiarly, defendant no.3, despite being the same
person as defendant no.2/proprietor, was arrayed with the address as
3
„ Khasra No. 1740 ME, Part B Bahadurgarh, Haryana., 124507 . Even
though admittedly defendant nos. 2 and 3 are the same person arrayed
at two different addresses, however, in this judgment, in order to avoid
confusion, they shall be dealt with separately, as done by the learned
trial court.
4. Before the institution of the underlying suit, the respondent had
also filed a parallel complaint dated 20.05.2021 against the petitioner
under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act contending that
the cheque issued in lieu of the outstanding amount of Rs. 6,41,058/-
had been dishonored.
5. The learned trial court vide order dated 19.11.2024 noted that
the summons issued to petitioner/defendant no.1 and defendant no. 2
were received back with the report that no firm and person by the
name of Isha Industries and Isha Sharma respectively was found at
that address, whereas, summons to defendant nos. 1-3 issued through
RC were received back with the report “no such person”.
6. On 06.02.2025, the learned trial court noted that the summons
issued to defendant no.3 came back as “refused” and thus, the same
was considered to be deemed service to defendant no. 3. Thereafter,
the respondent stated that petitioner/defendant no.1 and defendant
no.2 had been evading service of summons, and thus, sought to file an
2
Hereinafter “Rajouri”
3
Hereinafter “Khasra 1740”
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 168/2026 Page 2 of 13
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:05.11.2026
20:28:20
application under Order V Rule 20 CPC seeking substituted service
through publication.
7. The application under Order V Rule 20 CPC was allowed vide
order dated 17.03.2025 and petitioner/defendant no.1 and defendant
no. 2 were permitted to be served through publication in “Veer Arjun”
and “The Statesman”. Pursuant to the liberty granted vide order dated
17.03.2025, the respondent on 24.04.2025 served summons to
petitioner/defendant no. 1 and defendant no.2 through “Veer Arjun”
and “The Statesman”.
8. The learned trial court vide order dated 03.05.2025 noted that
the petitioner/defendant no.1 and defendant no. 2 had been served
through publication, and defendant no.3 has been deemed to be served
on 03.04.2025. Thus, despite completion of service, the defendants
had not filed their written statements, and no explanation regarding the
absence had been presented. Accordingly, the defendants had been
proceeded ex-parte.
9. It is stated that the proprietor of the petitioner, on 24.06.2025,
while checking the status of another case, acquired knowledge of the
underlying suit. Accordingly, the petitioner on 11.07.2025 filed an
application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC seeking to set aside the ex-
parte order dated 03.05.2025 on the ground that the substituted service
through publication in Delhi based newspapers did not amount to
proper service as the petitioner/proprietorship‟s registered address was
in Haryana and the proprietor herself was a permanent resident of
Punjab.
10. The application under Order IX Rule 7 was dismissed by the
learned trial court on 16.10.2025 noting that all the three defendants
had been effectively and properly served through publication, or by
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 168/2026 Page 3 of 13
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:05.11.2026
20:28:20
deemed service, and the defendants could not, at a belated stage seek
to file a written statement. The learned trial court, however, granted
the defendants liberty to cross-examine plaintiff witnesses to the
limited extent of their deposition.
11. Defendant no. 2 and 3 filed a review application against the
order dated 16.10.2025, which came to be dismissed with costs of Rs.
25,000/- by the learned trial court vide order dated 24.12.2025. The
learned trial court noted that the review application sought to re-
agitate issues which had already been dealt with, and that no error
apparent on the face of the record had been shown. Aggrieved, the
petitioner/proprietorship has approached this Court seeking to invoke
its supervisory jurisdiction.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
learned trial court has gravely erred in allowing substituted service
under Order V Rule 20 CPC without ensuring compliance with the
provisions under Order V Rule 17. He has submitted that Order V
Rule 17 mandates that the process server affix the summons on the
door of the defendant‟s house, or on a conspicuous part of the house,
and that without due compliance with the requirements of Rule 17, the
learned trial court ought not to have allowed the substituted service
under Rule 20 (1A). To this effect, he has placed reliance on a division
bench judgment of this Court in Harish Mittal v Kishan Gopal
4
Rathi .
13. He has also submitted that the learned trial court has erred in
failing to consider that the publication in Delhi based newspapers did
not amount to valid service for the petitioner/proprietorship which is
admittedly based in Haryana. He has submitted that the intent behind
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 168/2026 Page 4 of 13
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:05.11.2026
20:28:20
issuing summons gets defeated if the defendant does not receive the
summons and is consequently not intimated about the ongoing
proceedings. To this extent he has relied on the judgment of the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Great Punjab Agro Industries Ltd. v
5
Khushian & Ors.
14. He has also submitted that in July 2020, the
petitioner/proprietorship had changed their address from Khasra no.
1740 to “1637, Khemwat No. 3114, Khatoni No. 2397 opposite plot
6
no. 1301, MIE Part B, Bahadurgarh, Haryana – 124507 and despite
having supplied raw materials to the petitioner at the new address
from 2020 onwards, and thus, having the requisite knowledge of the
change of address for four years, the respondent/plaintiff deliberately
served summons to defendant no.3/proprietor on the earlier/old
address. He has relied on Annexure P-8 and the E-way bills therein
from July 2020 onwards to show that the respondent had the due
knowledge of the petitioner‟s changed address and that since the
petitioner‟s address has changed, they are unaware of who refused
service, and thus, there can be no deemed service for defendant no.3.
15. He has also submitted that while the impugned order dated
16.10.2025 gave the petitioner liberty to cross-examine PW-1, it did
not allow them to rejoin the proceedings from the stage at which they
were set ex-parte viz. 03.05.2025, thereby depriving them of the right
to file a written statement. He has submitted that closure of the right to
file a written statement, especially for no fault of the petitioner, will
have an adverse effect on the petitioner‟s defense.
4
2025 SCC OnLine Del 9474
5
(2005) 13 SCC 503
6
Hereinafter “1637 Khemwat”
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 168/2026 Page 5 of 13
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:05.11.2026
20:28:20
16. Thus, he has submitted that there was no proper service on the
petitioner/proprietorship as the pre-requisites of Rule 17 were not
complied with, and that the respondent has deliberately chosen to
serve the petitioner‟s proprietor on an old address.
17. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has relied on
the orders dated 19.11.2024 and 06.02.2025 to submit that the service
report to the petitioner/defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 came back
unserved, which necessitated the service through substituted means.
He has submitted that the respondent had exercised his due diligence
in serving the petitioner/proprietorship and it is only after service
could not be done through normal modes, despite exercise of
reasonable diligence, did the learned trial court allow the application
under Order V Rule 20 as abundant caution. He has submitted that the
legislative intent of speedy adjudication of a commercial dispute
cannot be allowed to be rendered otiose by allowing the defendant to
escape service of summons.
18. He has also relied on Rule 20(2) to submit that once the
summons were served through the publications, the same had the
effect of being served personally. Thus, the petitioner/proprietorship
and proprietor/defendant no.2 were served on 24.04.2025. He has also
relied on the order dated 06.02.2025 and has submitted that defendant
no.3/ proprietor was deemed to be served, and since the order has not
been challenged, the same has attained finality. Thus, it is not open to
the petitioner to challenge the same at such a belated stage.
19. He has also placed reliance on the petitioner‟s address in the
memo of parties of a complaint filed by the respondent against the
petitioner on 20.05.2021 under section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881. He has submitted that the address of the
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 168/2026 Page 6 of 13
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:05.11.2026
20:28:20
petitioner was mentioned at Khasra no. 1740 and at Rajouri and thus,
the petitioner‟s addresses were absolutely correct, and in the given
proceedings, the AR of the petitioner company had also appeared,
indicating that the notices sent to the petitioner‟s address were being
properly delivered.
20. Lastly, he has submitted that if the petition is allowed, and the
petitioner is allowed to file his written statement, the same would
amount to turning the clock back in a commercial suit, and the same
would be antithetic to the intent of speedy adjudication.
21. Heard. Perused the records.
22. The controversy in the present petition is confined to the
question of whether the petitioner was duly served. The petitioner was
proceeded against ex parte before filing its written statement, although
it was subsequently granted liberty to cross-examine the plaintiff‟s
witnesses to the limited extent of their depositions. If the present
petition is allowed, the petitioner would be restored to the stage of the
proceedings at which it was proceeded against ex parte . Accordingly,
if service upon the petitioner and its proprietor through the respective
modes adopted is found to be valid, the petitioner would not be
entitled to file its written statement. Conversely, if such service is
found to be invalid, the petitioner would be entitled to rejoin the
proceedings from 03.05.2025 i.e. the day when the petitioner was
proceeded ex-parte.
23. The present petition turns on the question of service at the
designated address. The petitioner has consistently maintained that the
address at Rajouri was never its own address or one used by it in its
official capacity, but was the residence of its authorised representative
until 2023. This is borne out by the order dated 19.11.2024, which
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 168/2026 Page 7 of 13
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:05.11.2026
20:28:20
records that, upon visiting the Rajouri address, the process server was
informed by one Rajesh that neither Isha Industries/petitioner, nor Isha
Sharma, its proprietor, resided there. Furthermore, the respondent has
not placed any material on record to show that the petitioner was ever
using the address at Rajouri as its office. Thus, Mr. Rajesh‟s
categorical statement given to the process server, as recorded in the
order dated 19.11.2024, that neither the petitioner nor its proprietor
resided or operated from the address at Rajouri , coupled with the
respondent‟s failure to produce any contrary material, indicates that
the petitioner was not occupying the address at Rajouri .
24. Once it is established that the address at Rajouri was not
connected to the petitioner/proprietorship at the time of institution of
suit or serving of summons, it is apposite to consider the purported
service to defendant no.3. To this effect, the petitioner has submitted
that the learned trial court has failed to consider the non-compliance
with requirement of affixation of summons under Order V Rule 17
and has thus, erred in allowing substituted service. At this point, it is
apposite to consider the relevant authorities of law.
25. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Neerja Realtors Private Limited
7
v Janglu (Dead) through Legal Representative inter-alia noted as
follows –
“14. Evidently as the report of the bailiff indicates, he was unable to
find the defendant at the address which was mentioned in the
summons. The report of the bailiff does not indicate that the
summons were affixed on a conspicuous part of the house, at the
address mentioned in the summons. There was a breach of the
provisions of Order 5 Rule 17. When the application for substituted
service was filed before the trial court under Order 5 Rule 20, a
cryptic order was passed on 2-9-2011. Order 5 Rule 20 requires the
7
(2018) 2 SCC 649
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 168/2026 Page 8 of 13
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:05.11.2026
20:28:20
court to be satisfied either that there is reason to believe that the
defendant is keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding
service or that for any other reason, the summons cannot be served
in the ordinary way. Substituted service is an exception to the
normal mode of service. The Court must apply its mind to the
requirements of Order 5 Rule 20 and its order must indicate due
consideration of the provisions contained in it. Evidently the trial
court failed to apply its mind to the requirements of Order 5 Rule 20
and passed a mechanical order….” (emphasis supplied)
26. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar Sabharwal v
8
Gurpreet Singh and Ors. , where the question for determination was
whether in view of the refusal to accept service of summons, and the
failure of the process server to affix the summons on the wall, the
same could amount to a valid service, noted inter-alia as follows –
“8. We find several infirmities and lapses on the part of the process
server. Firstly, on the alleged refusal by the defendant either he did
not affix a copy of the summons and the plaint on the wall of the
shop or if he claims to have done so, then the endorsement made by
him on the back of the summons does not support him, rather
contradicts him. Secondly, the tendering of the summons, its refusal
and affixation of the summons and copy of the plaint should have
been witnessed by the persons who identified the defendant and his
shop and witnessed such procedure…” (emphasis supplied)
27. Lastly, the Hon‟ble Division Bench of this Court in Harish
Mittal (supra) noted inter-alia as follows –
“26. If we believe that the respondent/plaintiff had continued its
business relations with the appellant/defendant post February, 2018,
coupled with the fact that the recovery suit was predicated on the
invoices from the month of July, 2018 onwards, having regard to the
fact that the suit was filed in December, 2021, it is verily possible that
the respondent/plaintiff had knowledge of the correct addresses of the
appellant/defendant. If that is so, the mere service by substituted
mode under Order V Rule 20 CPC would not be sufficient or deemed
to be an effective service of summons of the suit upon the
8
(2002) 5 SCC 377
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 168/2026 Page 9 of 13
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:05.11.2026
20:28:20
appellant/defendant. It is so for the reason as a last resort and
unless the ordinary mode as prescribed in Order V, CPC till service
through affixation under Order V Rule 17, CPC is exhausted, the
defendant cannot be deemed to be served in accordance with law.
(emphasis supplied)
28. Upon a conjoint reading of Order V Rule 17, Rule 20 and upon
a conspectus of perusal of the aforementioned authorities, it becomes
clear that in case the defendant refuses service, or the process server is
unable to locate the defendant at the given address, the process server
shall affix a copy of the summons at a conspicuous portion of the
house or address, as the case may be, along with a report giving
endorsement of the circumstances in which the copy of the summons
were given, along with relevant details of the witnesses who witnessed
the service of summons. In absence of compliance with the requisite
formalities of affixation and endorsement, as envisaged under Rule 17,
the service cannot be considered to be valid service in law.
29. In the present case, the defendant no.3/proprietor was deemed
to be served by the learned trial court vide order dated 06.02.2025 as
they had refused receipt of service. However, since it is not borne
from the record whether the process server affixed the summons at
defendant no.3‟s address or complied with any other requirement of
Rule 17, the deemed service cannot be considered to be a valid
service.
30. With respect to the substituted service allowed for the
petitioner/proprietorship and defendant no.2/proprietor, a perusal of
Rule 20 and the ratio in Neerja Relators (supra), makes it clear that
the learned trial court is required to be satisfied that the defendant is
avoiding service, and that the defendant cannot be served in any other
ordinary way. In other words, the learned trial court is required to
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 168/2026 Page 10 of 13
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:05.11.2026
20:28:20
examine the circumstances regarding the prior attempts at service, and
thereafter pass a reasoned order to the effect that the defendant is
either deliberately avoiding service, or cannot be served in any other
manner, thereby allowing substituted service. Substituted service
ought not to be allowed as a matter of practice, and the same has also
been upheld in Harish Mittal (supra).
31. In the present case, the learned trial court allowed the
respondent‟s application under Order V Rule 20 vide order dated
17.03.2025, however, the same does not record any reasons
showcasing that the petitioner/proprietorship or its proprietor has been
evading service, or that they cannot be served through ordinary
modes.
32. A perusal of the orders prior to 17.03.2025 passed by the
learned Trial Court does not justify the resort to substituted service.
The order dated 06.02.2025 records that neither the
petitioner/proprietorship nor its proprietor was found at the address
which had been furnished by the respondent/plaintiff in the memo of
parties, namely, “ J-11/86, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027” ,
whereupon the process server affixed the summons at the said address.
However, the record indicates that the respondent was aware of the
petitioner‟s addresses at Khasra No. 1740 and 1637 Khemwat well
before the summons were issued. The E-way bills reflect that the
respondent had dispatched pig iron to the petitioner at Khasra 1740
Bahadurgarh as early as 25.07.2017 and from July 2020 had supplied
pig iron to 1637 Khemwat Bahadurgarh.
33. In fact, the memo of parties in the complaint under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act categorically notes that the
petitioner‟s address is at Rajouri and Khasra 1740 Bahadurgarh. Thus,
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 168/2026 Page 11 of 13
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:05.11.2026
20:28:20
when the summons were returned unserved from the address at
Rajouri on 06.02.2025, the respondent was already aware of two other
addresses at Bahadurgarh at which the petitioner and its proprietor
could have been served. Yet, no attempt was made to effect service at
either of the petitioner‟s addresses in Bahadurgarh before resorting to
substituted service. The respondent ought to have served the petitioner
at both the addresses in Bahadurgarh, thereby fulfilling the pre-
requisites under Rule 20 before resorting to substituted service.
Dehors any attempt to serve the petitioner on the two addresses in
Bahadurgarh, it cannot be said that the petitioner could not have been
served in the ordinary way, as envisaged under Rule 20.
34. From the aforementioned analysis, the circumstances of the
present case indicate that the resort to substituted service under Order
V Rule 20 CPC is premature, particularly in the absence of any
attempt to serve the petitioner at its alternative addresses at
Bahadurgarh, which was within the respondent‟s knowledge. It is
incumbent upon a plaintiff to make bona fide and diligent efforts to
effect service at the defendant‟s known addresses, as the purpose of
summons is to bring the proceedings to the defendant‟s notice and
afford it an opportunity to respond. Since the respondent was aware of
the alternative addresses of the petitioner, every reasonable effort
ought to have been made by the respondent/plaintiff to serve the
petitioner on their last known addresses.
35. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the
petitioner/proprietorship has displayed a good and sufficient cause for
their absence. The deemed service to defendant no.3 cannot be held to
be a valid service as per law as the process server did not comply with
the requirements under Rule 17 and 20, and the same has been
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 168/2026 Page 12 of 13
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:05.11.2026
20:28:20
overlooked by the learned Trial Court. The substituted service sought
to be done through publication to the petitioner and its proprietor also
cannot be held to be a valid service in law as the respondent did not
serve the petitioner at the alternative addresses at Bahadurgarh, which
were known to the respondent. Since the service of summons is
improper and non-est in law, the petitioner ought to be allowed to
rejoin proceedings from the date and stage he was set ex-parte viz.
03.05.2025.
36. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned
orders cannot be sustained and the orders dated 03.05.2025,
16.10.2025 and 24.12.2025 are set aside. The learned trial court is
directed to allow the petitioner/proprietorship an opportunity to file
his written statement in accordance with the provisions under Order
VIII CPC.
37. The present petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending
applications, if any, are also disposed of.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
NOVEMBER 5, 2026/ ar/sg
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 168/2026 Page 13 of 13
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:05.11.2026
20:28:20