After 35-Year Suit Stalled Over Defendant’s Untraceable Address, P&H HC Allows Newspaper Service

The suit, instituted in 1991, had been adjourned sine die because the plaintiff could not furnish a current address for defendant No. 1.

The plaintiff sought substituted service by newspaper publication under Order V Rule 20 read with Section 151 CPC, relying on the only available address in a 1991 General Power of Attorney and sale deed, and on unsuccessful ordinary service in connected proceedings.

The Trial Court dismissed the application on 08.12.2023; the plaintiff challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Order V Rule 20 CPC permits substituted service where the Court is satisfied that the defendant is keeping out of the way to evade service or that, for another reason, summons cannot be served in the ordinary manner.

Substituted service is exceptional and cannot be ordered mechanically; the Court must independently satisfy itself that the statutory conditions exist.

The Court relied on Smruti Pahariya v. Sanjay Pahariya, 2009(13) SCC 338, and M/s. Neerja Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. Janglu (Dead) through Legal Representative, 2018(2) SCC 649, for the requirement of judicial application of mind before directing substituted service.

The suit had remained pending since 1991 principally because defendant No. 1 could not be served.

The plaintiff had made repeated unsuccessful efforts, supplied the only address available in the 1991 documents, and pointed to unsuccessful ordinary service in connected proceedings, where substituted service had ultimately been used.

In these circumstances, the Trial Court’s refusal to consider substituted service on the ground that no fresh address was available was unduly restrictive.

The record warranted allowing publication under Order V Rule 20 CPC.

It directed the Trial Court to serve defendant No. 1 by publication in a newspaper having the requisite circulation and thereafter proceed with the suit.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the service issue and did not address the merits of the underlying dispute.