Affixation under Order V Rule 17 CPC is a mandatory prerequisite for valid substituted service.

The petitioners (plaintiffs) instituted Title Suit No. 37/2006 for eviction and perpetual injunction against the respondents (defendants)

Despite the issuance of summons, the defendants did not appear, leading to an ex-parte decree on 02.07.2009

Respondent No. 1 subsequently filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC (Misc. (J) Case No. 24/2013) to set aside the decree, asserting lack of knowledge of the proceedings until execution

The Trial Court rejected this application on 30.09.2014, concluding summons were duly served and refused

On appeal, the Additional District Judge set aside the Trial Court’s order and the ex-parte decree on 06.09.2018, finding the service of summons defective

The petitioners challenged this appellate order before the Gauhati High Court under Section 115 of the CPC

1. Whether the procedure for affixing summons under Order V Rule 17 of the CPC is mandatory or merely directory.

2. Whether substituted service via newspaper publication under Order V Rule 20 is valid if the foundational requirements of personal service and affixation are not met.

3. Whether the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC, should interfere with the findings of the Appellate Court regarding the perversity of service reports.

The court primarily applied Order V Rules 17 and 20 of the CPC, which dictate that if a defendant refuses service or cannot be found, the serving officer must affix the summons to the defendant's residence

It further applied Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC, which allows setting aside an ex-parte decree if summons were not "duly served"

The court relied on the principle that the word "shall" in Order V Rule 17 makes the affixation procedure mandatory, as established in Shri K. Raja v. V. Prabhakar

Regarding revisional powers, the court applied Section 115 of the CPC, which limits interference to jurisdictional errors

The Court examined the service reports, noting they were inconsistent—alternating between "refusal" and "inability to locate" the defendant

It reasoned that even if a defendant refuses service, the mandatory requirement of affixation under Order V Rule 17 must be strictly followed to constitute "due service"

The Court rejected the petitioners' argument that newspaper publication (substituted service) cured procedural defects, holding that such service is only permissible once the Court is satisfied that ordinary service is not feasible after due diligence

Relying on Shri K. Raja, the Court emphasized that the procedural requirements for service are not hyper-technicalities but mandatory safeguards

Consequently, the Court found that the Appellate Court correctly identified the Trial Court’s findings as perverse because the foundational requirement of affixation was ignored before resorting to substituted service

Finding no jurisdictional error in the Appellate Court’s judgment, the High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition

The ex-parte decree remains set aside, allowing the suit to be contested on its merits.

No order as to costs was passed