The Amravati District Central Co-Op. Bank, Ltd., Amravati, Thr. Chief Executive Officer vs Aniruddha Alias Bablubhau Subhanrao Deshmukh And Ors.

2026:BHC-NAG:7115
0505WP6368-25.odt 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6368 OF 2025
The Amravati District Central Co-operative Bank
Limited, Amravati, Head office Irwin Square, Camp
Road, Amravati, Tq. and Dist. Amravati. Through its
Chief Executive Officer. PETITIONER

VERSUS
1. Aniruddha alias Bablubhau Subhanrao Deshmukh,
Aged 60 years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o Vijay Colony,
V.M.V. Road, Amravati. Tq. and Dist. Amravati.
2. Suresh Bapuraoji Sable, Aged 72 years, Occ:
Agriculturist, R/o Gurudeo Nagar, Tiosa,
Tq. Tiosa, Dist.Amravati.
3. Haribhau Yadavrao Mohod, Aged 61 years, Occ:
Agriculturist, R/o Asra, Tq. Bhatkuli, Dist.Amravati.
4. Dayaramji Sanu Kale, Aged 52 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Gaulkheda Bazar, Tq. Chikhaldara, Dist.Amravati.
5. Shrikant Bhimraoji Gawande, Aged 54 years, Occ:
Agriculturist, R/o At Post Dattapur, Dhamangaon
Railway, TQ. Dhamangaon Railway, Dist. Amravati.
6. Sudhakar Narayanrao Bharsakale, Aged 59 years, Occ:
Agriculturist, R/o Shivaji Nagar, Daryapur, Tq.Daryapur,
District Amravati.
7. Purushottam alias Balasaheb Babarao Alone, Aged 62
years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o Wani Belkhada,
Tq. Chandur Bazar, District Amravati.
8. Monika Sanjayrao Mardikar, Aged 55 years, Occ:
Agriculturist, R/o Mardi, Tq. Tiosa, Dist. Amravati.
9. Virendra Walmikrao Jagtap, Aged 60 years, Occ:
Agriculturist, R/o Jawla (Dhotra), Tq. Chandur
Railway, District Amravati.
10. Sunil Gopalrao Warhade, Aged 61 years, Occ:
Agriculturist, R/o Pawan Medical Lane, Rathi
Nagar, Amravati, Tq. and Dist. Amravati.
11. Prakash Babarao Kalbande, Aged 62 years, Occ:
Pensioner, R/o Suyog Colony, Camp, Amravati.
Tq. and District Amravati.

0505WP6368-25.odt 2 Judgment
12. Balwant Basvantrao Wankhade, Aged 55 years,
Occ: Agriculturist, R/o Banosa, Daryapur,
Tq. Daryapur, District Amravati.
13. Surekhatai Surendrapant Thakare, Aged 60
years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o Javla Shahapur,
Tq. Chandur Bazar, District Amravati.
14. Omprakash alias Bacchubhau B. Kadu. Aged Adult,
Occ: Politician, R/o Kural, Tq. Chandur Bazar,
District Amravati.
15. Abhijit Pravinrao Dhepe (Patil), Age- Adult, Occ:
Agriculturist, R/o Vimal Colony, Chhatri Talav
Road, Amravati, Tq. and District Amravati.
16. Ajay Shankarrao Mehkare, Aged Adult, Occ:
Agriculturist, R/o Pannalal Nagar, Amravati,
Tq. and Dist. Amravati.
17. Anand Nandkumar Kale, Age Adult, Occ: Agriculturist,
Brahmansabha Colony Paratwad, Tq. Achalpur,
District Amravati.
18. Jaiprakash D. Patel, Age Adult, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o At Post Zilpi, Dharni, Tq. Dharni, Dist.Amravati.
19. Chitratai Prashantrao Dahane, Age Adult, Occ:
Agriculturist, R/o Shanti Sadan Colony, Near
Ashiyad Colony, Shegaon Road, Amravati,
Tq. and Dist. Amravati.
20. Nareshchandra P. Thakre, Age Adult, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Jawahar Housing Society, Warud, Tq. Warud,
District Amravati.
21. Ravindra V. Gaigole, Age Adult, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Samarth Colony, Near Rukhmini Nagar,
Amravati, Tq. and District Amravati. RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
Shri C.S. Kaptan, Senior Advocate with Shri P.A. Kadu, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri H.D. Dangre, Advocate with Shri R.B. Dhore, counsel for the respondent
nos.1 to 9, 12 and 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
DATE ON WHICH ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD : FEBRUARY 11 , 202 6

DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED : MAY 05 , 202 6
JUDGMENT
Heard.
RULE.

0505WP6368-25.odt 3 Judgment
2. The petitioner-Bank has challenged the order dated 14.05.2025
passed by the Cooperative Court on an application at Exhibit 42 in dispute
no.86 of 2023 and the order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the Maharashtra
State Cooperative Appellate Court, Bench at Nagpur in revision
application no.05 of 2025, by which the application for permission to
effect substituted service is allowed.
3. The primary issue which falls for consideration in the instant
petition is justiciability of the orders passed by the Courts, granting
permission to effect substituted service upon the members of the society in
the wake of provisions of Order V Rule 20 of Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (for short, ‘the Code’).
4. The controversy involved in the instant matter arises in the
backdrop of following facts which are stated in nutshell:-
i. The petitioner is a Cooperative Bank registered under the provisions
of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, ‘the Act’). In
response to an application for membership submitted by about 1105
interested persons, the petitioner passed a resolution (Resolution no.11)
in its Executive Committee Meeting held on 18.09.2023 and admitted
those persons as members of the society.
ii. The respondent nos.1 to 13 who are members of the society, filed a
dispute under Section 91 of the Act vide Dispute no.86 of 2023, seeking a
declaration that the resolution no.11 passed by the Executive Committee
on 18.09.2023 is illegal, unlawful and without any right or authority.
Initially, total nine opponents were added to the dispute which included
the petitioner herein, as opponent no.1 and 8 executive members.

0505WP6368-25.odt 4 Judgment
iii. On 10.11.2023, the disputants filed an application at Exhibit 10 for
addition of parties to implead the names of 1105 members as party
opponents to the dispute.
iv. By order dated 15.01.2024, the Cooperative Court issued notices to
the proposed 1105 opponents. Accordingly, notices were sent by
Registered Post Acknowledgment Due for effecting service upon all the
proposed opponents.
v. Although notices were served upon some of the members, however,

the notices on several members returned unserved with postal endorsement
as ‘refused’, ‘unclaimed’, ‘not claimed’ and ‘reported to be dead’.
vi. On 14.05.2025, the disputants therefore filed an application, at
Exhibit 42, for grant of permission to serve the notices upon the unserved
opponents by publishing the notice in local newspaper.
vii. On the same day, i.e. on 14.05.2025 itself, the Cooperative Court
allowed the application and permitted the disputants to serve the notice
upon the unserved opponents by publishing notice in local newspaper.
viii. The petitioner-Bank, which was arrayed as opponent no.1 to the
dispute, challenged the said order before the Cooperative Appellate Court
by filing revision application bearing no.5 of 2025.
ix. By order dated 18.09.2025, the Cooperative Appellate Court
rejected the revision application and upheld the order passed by the
Cooperative Court.
x. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed by the Cooperative
Court as well as the Cooperative Appellate Court, the petitioner-Bank has
filed instant instant petition.

0505WP6368-25.odt 5 Judgment

5. In support of its submissions, Senior Advocate Shri C.S. Kaptan for the

petitioner, canvassed various submissions, which are briefly stated below:-
a. The impugned order passed by the Cooperative Court, is
unsustainable as the Court has failed to record its satisfaction about the
reasons to believe that the proposed opponents had avoided service and as
such the application for substituted service, by ignoring purport of the
provisions of Order V Rule 20 of the Code, deserved to be rejected.
b. The order passed by the Cooperative Court is cryptic and
unreasoned and is passed without considering the fact that the disputants
failed to make out any case for substituted service under Order V Rule 20
of the Code.
c. The disputants failed to take all the necessary steps for effecting
service by regular mode and had adopted a shortcut method to effect
service only on the ground that the service upon 1100 opponents will be a
tedious job. The reasons put forth in the application for substituted
service are not at all sufficient for allowing the disputants to serve by way
of paper publication.
d. As the controversy involved in the dispute is about challenge to the
membership of the proposed opponents who are more than 1100 in
number, it is necessary to effect proper service upon all the proposed
opponents for granting them an opportunity to contest the dispute on
merits.

0505WP6368-25.odt 6 Judgment
6. To buttress his submissions, the learned Senior Advocate placed
reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neerja Realtors
Private Limited Versus Janglu (Dead) Through legal representative
[(2018) 2 SCC 649], in which it is held that recording of satisfaction of
the Court about service being avoided is necessary before resorting to
provisions of Order V Rule 20 of the Code. Thus, in absence of any
reasons being reflected from the order, a cryptic order allowing service by
way of substituted service is unsustainable. In this regard, he also placed
reliance on the judgment of coordinate bench of this court in the matter of
Ramesh Jagannath Ingole Versus Shakunbai Ganesh Ingole [2015(6) ALL
MR 286], which lays down similar proposition.

He also placed reliance on the single bench judgment of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in the matter of Indore holding Pvt.Ltd & Others

Versus Chimanlal & Others [(2019) 2 MP LJ 215] and submitted that recourse
to the substituted service has to be by way of last resort. He submitted
that the Cooperative Court was under statutory obligation to record
reasons about justification of compliance of Order V Rule 20 of the Code.
7. Per contra, Shri Harish Dangre, learned counsel for respondents
vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the petition is not
maintainable at the instance of the petitioner-Bank, which is the opponent
no.1 in the said dispute. He submitted that the petitioner-Bank cannot
claim to be an aggrieved party and hence the revision application filed
before the Cooperative Appellate Court was also not maintainable. He

0505WP6368-25.odt 7 Judgment
also raised objection about the authority of the person who has sworn the
affidavit on behalf of the petitioner-Bank in this petition by alleging that
he is not the Chief Executive Officer of the Bank or the person authorized
on behalf of the Bank by any resolution. Apart from these objections, he
submitted that the orders passed by the Cooperative Court as well as the
Cooperative Appellate Court do not warrant interference on any count, as
the Cooperative Court has exercised its discretionary power in allowing
the application to facilitate service of notice upon the proposed opponents.
He argued that considering the reasons mentioned in the application for
substituted service, the Cooperative Court has rightly considered the
contention that the proposed opponents being 1100 in number, the
process of effecting service would be a tedious job.
8. By relying upon provisions of Rule 78 of the Maharashtra Cooperative

Societies Rules, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the

primary mode of service through Registered Post Acknowledgment Due was
resorted to and having failed in that process, the recourse to substituted
service was the only option. By relying on the provisions of sub-Rule 2 of
Rule 78, he submitted that the service could have been effected through
the institution and the petitioner-Bank ought to have supplied the details
of the opponents on whom the service was required to be effected. He
also placed reliance on Rule 78(4) and submitted that this rule allows
service ‘in such manner it thinks fit’ which means by any other mode and
as such the order passed by the Cooperative Court is within the four
corners of law, warranting no interference on any count.

0505WP6368-25.odt 8 Judgment
9. To controvert the contentions of the respondents, learned Senior

Advocate for the petitioner-Bank placed reliance on the additional affidavit
dated 10.02.2026 filed on behalf of the petitioner-Bank and invited my
attention to the resolution of the Board of Directors taken on 17.11.2021
by which the Board has resolved to authorize the Chief Executive Officer
of the Bank to contest cases on its behalf, which included the authority for
filing of vakalatnama and signing all the documents on behalf of the Bank

in Court cases. He submitted that the affidavit of the instant petition being

sworn by Shri Sanjay Ingley, the Chief Executive Officer of the Bank cannot

be faulted with. Further, as regards the contentions of the respondents
about service through the institution in accordance with Rule 78(2) of the
Rules, he submitted that the disputants have never filed any application
seeking details from the bank about the addresses of the members who are
the proposed opponents to the dispute. He submitted that the disputants
have never demanded the details of the proposed opponents and as such
the reliance placed on Rule 78(2) is misplaced.
10. In the backdrop of above mentioned submissions, the rival
contentions fall for my consideration.
11. As regards the objections raised by the respondents, it has to be
noted that in view of the fact that the petitioner-Bank is the opponent no.1
in the dispute and in view of the fact that the dispute is filed by the
disputants for seeking cancellation of membership of thousands of
members of the petitioner-Bank, it is entitled to raise challenge based on
the legal issues, since in the event of a defective service upon the proposed

0505WP6368-25.odt 9 Judgment
opponents by disregarding the procedural law, serious prejudice will be
caused to the members as well as to the Bank. Hence, the challenge at the
instance of the Bank needs to be entertained and cannot be considered to
be without any locus. Further, in view of the resolution of the Board of
Directors of the Bank dated 17.11.2021, the authority of the person who
has sworn the affidavit on behalf of the petitioner-Bank cannot be faulted
with, so as to dismiss the petition on that count. As such, the objections
raised by the respondents on both the counts do not sustain. The petition
is accordingly taken up for further consideration.
12. I have perused the documents on record and given thoughtful
consideration to the contentions canvassed on behalf of both the parties. It
has to be noted that the disputants have challenged the resolution dated
18.09.2023 and in effect sought for cancellation of membership of the
opponents and therefore effecting service upon all the proposed
opponents is crucial. The disputants have filed the application dated
14.05.2025 at Exhibit 42, stating therein that although some of the

persons have been served, however as regards several other persons, the
postal envelopes are returned with endorsements ‘unclaimed’, ‘not
claimed’ and ‘refused’ and it is stated that since there are more than 1100
persons who are required to be added as opponents to the dispute, the job
of service upon them is very tedious and therefore permission is sought to
serve the members by publication of notice in the local newspapers. Thus,
the main reasons which are put forth are the number of persons being
more than 1100 and the job of effecting service being tedious in nature.

0505WP6368-25.odt 10 Judgment
13. Pertinent to note, on the application at Exhibit 42 which was filed
on 14.05.2025, the Cooperative Court has passed the order on the same
day i.e. on 14.05.2025, which is reproduced below:-
“Issue notice to the remaining unserved opponents in local
newspaper as prayed and as per law”
Thus, it can be seen that, the Cooperative Court has allowed the
application on the same day without recording any reasons about its
satisfaction that the proposed opponents have avoided service upon them.
The order passed by the Cooperative Court does not at all mention any
other reason for allowing the dispute to resort to the provision of
substituted service by way of paper publication. It is clear that the order
passed by the Cooperative Court is cryptic and unreasoned, apart from it
being passed on mere asking.
14. At this juncture, it is relevant to have a look at the provisions of
Order V Rule 20 of the Code, which is reproduced below:-
“20. Substituted service.-(1) Where the Court is satisfied 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, the Court shall order the summons to be served by affixing
a copy thereof in some conspicuous place in the Court-house,
and also upon some conspicuous part of the house (if any) in
which the defendant is known to have last resided or carried on
business or personally worked for gain, or in such other manner
as the Court thinks fit.
(1-A) Where the Court acting under sub-rule (1) orders service
by an advertisement in a newspaper, the newspaper shall be a
daily newspaper circulating in the locality in which the
defendant is last known to have actually and voluntarily
resided, carried on business or personally worked for gain.]

0505WP6368-25.odt 11 Judgment
(2) Effect of substituted service-Service substituted by order of
the Court shall be as effectual as if it had been made on the
defendant personally.
(3) Where service substituted, time for appearance to be fixed-
Where service is substituted by order of the Court, the Court
shall fix such time for the appearance of the defendant as the
case may require.”
On a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that on the Court
being satisfied and having reason to believe that the respondent before it
has avoided the service of notice or could not be served through usual
mode, then, after recording its satisfaction, the Court can grant permission
for effecting service through substituted service. It has to be noted that
the other provisions of Order V of the Code dealing with the necessary
steps about effecting service on the parties, make it clear that recourse to
Rule 20 has to be preceded by taking all the steps to serve the parties by
regular mode and the service through substituted service has to be by way
of last resort.
15. It is beneficial to refer to the position of law as laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the aspect of substituted
service under Order V Rule 20 of the Code. In Neerja Realtors Private
Limited (supra), it is held that on failure to comply with Order V Rule 17
of the Code, the directions to effect service through substituted service
was not justified. The position of law is clarified while deciding the said
case as reflected in paragraphs 9 and 15, which are reproduced below:-
“9. The High Court by its judgment dated 7-7-2015 held that
neither the report of the bailiff nor the order of the trial court

0505WP6368-25.odt 12 Judgment
indicate that a copy of the summons was affixed in a
conspicuous place on the court house and at the house where
the defendant was known to have last resided. The High Court
held that there was a breach of the provisions of Order 5 Rule
20(1) CPC. The High Court observed that the order of the trial
court permitting substituted service was cryptic and that the
Court had not recorded its satisfaction that the defendant was
keeping out of the way to avoid service or that the summons
could not be served in the ordinary manner for any other
reason. Moreover, the serving officer had not followed the
procedure stipulated in Order 5 Rule 17 where the defendant
was not found to reside at the place where he was last residing.
The Court noted that besides the service to be effected through
the bailiff, the summons were not sent to the defendant at the
address furnished by the plaintiff by registered post, with
acknowledgment due. The High Court also found that the trial
Judge had ignored the provisions of Chapter III of the Civil
Manual issued by the High Court on the appellate side for
guidance of the civil courts and officers subordinate to it.
15. The submission that under Order 5 Rule 20, it was not
necessary to affix a copy of the summons at the court house and
at the house where the defendant is known to have last resided,
once the court had directed service by publication in the
newspaper really begs the question. There was a clear breach of
the procedure prescribed in Order 5 Rule 17 even antecedent
thereto. Besides, the order of the Court does not indicate due
application of mind to the requirement of the satisfaction
prescribed in the provision. The High Court was, in these
circumstances, justified in coming to the conclusion that the ex
parte judgment and order in the suit for specific performance
was liable to be set aside.”
16. The position of law is also clarified by the Coordinate Bench of this
Court in Ramesh Jagannath Ingole (supra) laying down similar
observations about requirement of recording reasons and satisfaction
by the Court before taking recourse to the provisions for substituted
service.

0505WP6368-25.odt 13 Judgment
17. It is also relevant to take note of the observations of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in Indore Holding Pvt. Ltd. & Others (supra), in which
it is observed that the trial Court is under a statutory obligation to record
reasons germane for justification of compliance with Order V Rule 20 of

the Code and substituted service has to be resorted to as a last resort where
the defendant cannot be served in the ordinary way, and when the Court
is satisfied that there is reason to believe that the defendant is keeping out
of the way for the purpose of avoiding service. Relevant paragraph from
the said judgment, being paragraph 14 is reproduced below:-
“14. The report of the process server explicitly suggests
mutually conflicting reports, viz., (i) at the given address, the
defendant-company was not found; (ii) there was a chowkidar
who said that the owners of the company were out of station
and said that unless, the Owners permit him to take notice, he
cannot accept the notice. There was no compliance of Order 5,
Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code as neither did he affix the notice
nor submitted the report in the context of the said provision to
complete the service of summons. Under the circumstances, the
defendants admittedly were not available at the given address,
therefore, it could not have been construed to be a case of
refusal or deliberate avoidance of notice. In fact, it ought to
have been held that there was no compliance of Order 5, Rule
17, Civil Procedure Code. The trial Court, therefore, in all
fairness, ought to have ordered for payment of fresh process to
serve upon the defendants or if for any reason it was found that
the defendants cannot be found at the residence should have
ordered for service of notice through affixture under Order 5,
Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code. That was not done. Before
ordering for substituted service through publication under Order
5, Rule 20, Civil Procedure Code, the trial Court was under
statutory obligation to record reasons germane for justification
of compliance of Rule 20, Civil Procedure Code. The order dated
25-8-2004 does not suggest application of mind in the aforesaid
context. The trial Court has straightaway ordered for substituted
service without taking steps for service of summons by ordinary

0505WP6368-25.odt 14 Judgment
way as contemplated under Order 5, Rules 12, 15 and 17, Civil
Procedure Code. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Yallawwa (Smt.) (supra), substituted service has to be
resorted as a last resort where the defendant cannot be served in
the ordinary way and the Court is justified 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.
In view of the above, the impugned order dated 25-8-
2004 is found to have been passed in hot haste and slip shod
manner contrary to the low laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court and
High Courts in catena of decisions as relied upon by the learned
senior counsel for the appellants.”
18. Thus, in view of the above mentioned exposition of law about the
provisions of Order V Rule 20 of the Code, it has to be seen as to whether
in the instant case, the disputant has made out a case for invoking provisions
of Order V Rule 20 for effecting substituted service and whether the trial
Court has recorded its satisfaction as required by the said provision.
19. Perusal of the application filed on behalf of the disputants, at
Exhibit 42, mentioning reason about the procedure being tedious, cannot
be considered to be a justification or sufficient cause for resorting to
provisions of Order 5 Rule 20 of the Code for effecting substituted service.
The application does not mention any steps taken by the disputants for
effecting service by all other permissible modes either by fixing the notice
at a conspicuous place of the house where the proposed opponents were
known to have last resided or any efforts to obtain their correct addresses.
Even disputants have not taken any steps to obtain the addresses of the
proposed opponents by making any communications with the Bank or by
filing any application before the Court, by resorting to Rule 78(2) of the

0505WP6368-25.odt 15 Judgment
Rules. It is thus clear that the Cooperative Court has allowed the
application for substituted service, only on mere asking by the disputant
without any application of mind, and as such, the impugned order passed
by the Cooperative Court does not stand to the scrutiny of law.
20. It has to be noted that in the application for substituted service, at
Exhibit 42, the disputants have categorized the proposed opponents by
mentioning the status of service on the basis of endorsements of the postal
department. Although the list under Category A to E is with respect to the
persons who are served or the postal endorsement have shown the remark
as ‘not claimed’ or ‘refused’, it has to be noted that the service is not
effected on substantial number of proposed opponents as mentioned in
Category-F. As regards category F, which contain a list of opponents who
remained unserved, it is clear that there are more than 500 persons who
are not at all served and there is no endorsement about ‘unclaimed’ or ‘not
claimed’ and therefore, allowing substituted service by paper publication
on these proposed opponents would clearly amount to allowing the
disputants to bypass regular mode of service and adopt a shortcut method
to serve through paper publication. It is pertinent to note that the
disputants have challenged the resolution no.11 and in effect claimed the
relief of cancellation of their membership, which would amount to their
disqualification and as such it is necessary to serve the notices upon all
those members. The disputants have themselves decided to add the
members as proposed opponents and therefore the disputants have to
follow the due procedure for affecting service upon those persons whose

0505WP6368-25.odt 16 Judgment
rights of membership are questioned in the dispute. In this background,
the one line order passed by the Cooperative Court, in a mechanical
manner without recording any satisfaction about avoidance of notice by
the proposed opponents, is not sustainable in law.
21. As regards the reasons recorded by the Cooperative Appellate
Court, it has to be noted that without any basis, it is inferred that the
Cooperative Court was satisfied that there are reasons to demonstrate that
the summons cannot be served in ordinary way and it is therefore
recorded that the discretionary order passed by the Cooperative Court
required no interference. It has also to be noted that, although the
judgment in Ramesh Jagannath Ingole (supra) was cited before the
Cooperative Appellate Court, which is even mentioned in paragraph 8 of
the impugned order, however, there is no discussion about consideration
of the law down by this Court in the said judgment.
22. Even as regards, the contentions of the disputants by placing
reliance upon provisions of Rule 78 of the Rules, it has to be noted that
the disputants have failed to take steps to secure the details of the
proposed opponents from the Bank for effecting service in regular manner.
There is noting on record to show that the disputants have sought for the
details of the proposed opponents from the Bank, either by issuing any
communications or by filing any application, and as such the reliance on
Rule 78 of the Rules to suggest that service by any other mode is
permissible, is misplaced in the facts of the instant case. The contentions
in this regard are therefore not acceptable. It has to be noted that the

0505WP6368-25.odt 17 Judgment
disputants have filed the application at Exhibit 42 for effecting service by
paper publication and therefore, it was imperative for them to exhaust all
other permissible modes before resorting to service by paper publication
by invoking provisions of Order V Rule 20 of the Code.
23. It is relevant to note that in every matter, effecting service upon the
parties is crucial and conclusion of service only on the basis of substituted
service can be prejudicial, since after the service by way of paper
publication the matter proceeds in regular course. Therefore, it is
imperative for the parties to take recourse to all permissible modes of
service before resorting to provisions of Order V Rule 20 of the Code for
effecting substituted service. An application for effecting service by paper
publication is required to be decided by the Court only on the basis of its
satisfaction, based on material before it, about avoidance of service by the
concerned party and as such the recourse to substituted service has to be
adopted as a last resort. Allowing an application for substituted service
only for the reason that the service by regular mode would be a tedious
job or would be a time consuming process, clearly depicts mechanical
approach in deciding the important applications. In the litigation
involving rights of the parties, it is always desirable that all the concerned
parties are served by all the permissible modes and only on the basis of
satisfaction of the Court that the service is complete in all respects, the
matter should be proceeded further.
24. On giving anxious consideration to the entire controversy involved
in the instant matter, I am of the firm opinion that the disputants have

0505WP6368-25.odt 18 Judgment
failed to take all the necessary steps before taking recourse to the mode of
substituted service. The impugned order passed by the Cooperative Court,
allowing the application for service through paper application is therefore
unsustainable in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. So also,
the order passed by the Cooperative Appellate Court in dismissing the
revision application is also unsustainable and needs to be interfered.
However, it has to be noted that the disputants can invoke provisions of
Order V Rule 20 of the Code for effecting service through substituted
service after taking all the necessary steps and in case the Court is satisfied
about avoidance of service by the proposed opponents, an application
submitted by the disputants can be independently considered by the
Court, if situation arises.
25. In view of the above mentioned factual and legal aspects, I am of
the considered opinion that the impugned orders passed by the
Cooperative Court as well as the Cooperative Appellate Court warrants
indulgence. Hence, I pass the following order:-
I. The writ petition is allowed.
II. The order dated 14.05.2025 passed by the Cooperative Court on
the application at Exhibit 42 in Dispute no.86 of 2023 is quashed
and set aside. So also, the order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the
Cooperative Appellate Court in the Revision Application no.5 of
2025 is quashed and set aside.
III. The application filed by the disputants at Exhibit 42 in Dispute
no.86 of 2023 is rejected.

0505WP6368-25.odt 19 Judgment
IV. It is clarified that the disputants are entitled to take steps to effect
service upon the unserved proposed opponents by taking recourse
to all the permissible modes of service as mentioned in Order V of
the Code.
26. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)
APTE
Signed by: Apte
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 07/05/2026 17:08:20