25-Year-Old Suit: Madras HC Upholds Substituted Service For Proposed Defendant, Says First Defendant Has No Grievance Over Notice

The first defendant challenged an order allowing the plaintiff’s application under Order V Rule 20 CPC for substituted service on a proposed 38th defendant.

Following an earlier remand in S.A. No. 388 of 2006, the plaintiff had been directed to implead necessary parties.

After attempts to serve the proposed defendant failed, the trial court found that the defendant was evading service; the first defendant contended that the proposed defendant was deceased and that the defendant’s legal heirs should instead be impleaded.

The trial court found no material establishing the alleged death and ordered substituted service.

The first defendant brought this revision under Article 227, arguing that the requirements of Order V Rule 20 had not been met.

Order V Rule 20 CPC governs substituted service.

The petitioner relied on Neerja Realtors Private Limited v. Janglu (dead) through legal representative, (2018) 2 SCC 649, for the proposition that substituted service cannot be ordered as a matter of course without satisfying the Rule’s requirements.

The Court also applied the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, considering whether the trial court’s order was illegal so as to warrant interference.

The Court noted that the trial court had considered the reason for the returned notice and concluded that the proposed defendant was evading service; it had also found no material supporting the claim that the defendant was deceased.

The Court held that any challenge to defective substituted service belonged to the proposed defendant, not the first defendant.

It further observed that notice to the proposed defendant in the revision had also been returned marked “left,” and that the court could not wait indefinitely in a long-pending suit already in its second round of proceedings.

In those circumstances, the trial court’s order did not warrant interference under Article 227.

It directed the Subordinate Court, Conoor, to dispose of the suit within six months of receiving the order and to submit a report to the High Court.

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.