Delhi HC Restores Firm’s Chance to Defend ₹6.41-Lakh Recovery Suit After Plaintiff Failed to Try Its Known Bahadurgarh Addresses

The respondent filed a commercial recovery suit for ₹6,41,058 against Isha Industries, its proprietor, and the proprietor separately.

Summons sent to the Rajouri Garden address were returned unserved; summons sent to the proprietor at an address in Bahadurgarh were treated as refused.

The trial court permitted substituted service by newspaper publication and, on 3 May 2025, proceeded ex parte against the defendants.

It later dismissed the petitioner’s application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC and its review application.

The petitioner challenged those orders, contending that service was invalid because the Rajouri address was not its address, the respondent knew of alternative Bahadurgarh addresses, and the requirements for affixation and substituted service had not been met.

Order V Rule 17 CPC requires the process server, where the defendant refuses service or cannot be found, to affix the summons at a conspicuous part of the house or premises and report the relevant circumstances; service cannot be treated as valid without compliance with the prescribed requirements.

Under Order V Rule 20 CPC, substituted service is exceptional and may be ordered only when the court is satisfied that the defendant is avoiding service or cannot be served by ordinary means; the court must apply its mind to the prior service attempts and record reasons.

The Court relied on Neerja Realtors Private Limited v. Janglu (Dead) through Legal Representative, (2018) 2 SCC 649, on the need for compliance with Rule 17 and judicial application of mind under Rule 20; Sushil Kumar Sabharwal v. Gurpreet Singh, (2002) 5 SCC 377, on the requirements for valid refusal and affixation; and Harish Mittal v. Kishan Gopal Rathi, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9474, on substituted service as a last resort after ordinary modes, including affixation, have been exhausted.

The Court found that the Rajouri address was not shown to be the petitioner’s address: the process server recorded that neither the petitioner nor its proprietor was located there, and the respondent produced no contrary material.

As to the proprietor’s purported refusal at the Bahadurgarh address, the record did not establish that the summons had been affixed or that Rule 17’s requirements had otherwise been met; deemed service was therefore not valid.

The substituted-service order gave no reasons showing evasion or inability to serve by ordinary means.

Further, the respondent knew of two Bahadurgarh addresses from its business records and the Section 138 complaint, but made no attempt to serve either before seeking publication.

Substituted service was consequently premature and ineffective.

The petitioner had shown sufficient cause for its absence and was entitled to rejoin the proceedings from the stage at which it was proceeded against ex parte.

It allowed the petition, set aside the orders dated 3 May, 16 October and 24 December 2025, and directed the trial court to permit the petitioner to file its written statement in accordance with Order VIII CPC.