A defendant inadequately served may be allowed to contest the suit and file a written statement, subject to costs.

The petitioners challenged two orders in O.S. No. 356/2022, a suit for injunction: an order setting aside the order placing the respondent ex parte, and a subsequent order permitting the respondent to file a written statement

The petitioners contended that substituted service by newspaper publication had been effected and that the respondent knew of the suit but applied to participate only when it was listed for judgment

The respondent maintained that the address in the plaint and the name in the publication were incorrect, and that the respondent learned of the suit from a relative

The High Court found that the respondent did not reside at the address given in the plaint and that the petitioners had not established that the suit’s pendency had been notified on the suit property

Whether the Trial Court was justified in setting aside the order placing the respondent ex parte.

Whether the Trial Court was justified in permitting the respondent to file a written statement, and whether the impugned orders warranted interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The petitions invoked the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging orders made in proceedings under Order IX Rule 7 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Court applied the principles of natural justice and reason

The High Court found that the respondent did not reside at the address given in the plaint and that the petitioners had not established that the suit’s pendency had been notified on the suit property.

The respondent maintained that the address in the plaint and the name in the publication were incorrect, and that the respondent learned of the suit from a relative.

A defendant inadequately served may be allowed to contest the suit and file a written statement, subject to costs.