Newspaper publication cannot validate substituted service without judicial satisfaction and diligent ordinary-service attempts.

Respondent No. 1 instituted a suit for specific performance concerning agricultural land against the appellants and the State/Registrar.

Summons issued to the appellants were returned unserved after the process server found their house locked and was informed that they had shifted to Jaipur, allegedly residing in Shankar Vihar Colony.

Without obtaining their complete Jaipur address or making further attempts at ordinary service, the trial court permitted substituted service by newspaper publication on 6 December 2013 and subsequently proceeded against the appellants ex parte.

The suit was decreed on 23 August 2017, including directions for execution of the sale deed and a decree of perpetual injunction affecting the appellants’ rights in the property.

Upon receiving notice in execution proceedings, the appellants filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC, contending that they had never been duly served. The application was dismissed by the District Judge, Churu, leading to the present appeal.

1. Whether the trial court lawfully invoked substituted service under Order V Rule 20 CPC without recording satisfaction that the appellants were deliberately avoiding service or that ordinary service had become impracticable?

2. Whether newspaper publication, in the circumstances of the case, constituted effective service and afforded the appellants notice of the suit and sufficient time to appear and contest it?

3. Whether the ex parte judgment and decree were liable to be set aside under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on the ground that the summons had not been duly served?

Order IX Rule 13 CPC permits setting aside an ex parte decree where summons were not duly served or where the defendant, despite due service, was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing.

The two grounds operate independently.

Under the second proviso to Order IX Rule 13, an ex parte decree is not to be set aside for a mere service irregularity if the defendant had notice of the hearing date and sufficient time to answer the claim.

Order V Rule 20 CPC makes substituted service an exceptional mode, permissible only when the court is satisfied that the defendant is deliberately avoiding service, is keeping out of the way, or that summons cannot otherwise reasonably be served; such satisfaction must follow reasonable efforts at ordinary service and must be discernible from the record.

Newspaper publication must also be reasonably calculated to bring the proceedings to the defendant’s notice, having regard to the defendant’s locality, the newspaper’s circulation, the language and contents of the notice, and the time granted thereafter.

Section 151 CPC preserves the court’s inherent powers but does not dispense with the statutory safeguards governing service.

The process server’s report did not indicate refusal, concealment, or deliberate evasion; it merely recorded that the house was locked and provided a specific lead that the appellants were residing in Jaipur, in or around Shankar Vihar Colony.

The trial court therefore ought to have required the plaintiff to furnish the complete address and attempted ordinary service before resorting to substituted service.

The order dated 6 December 2013 contained no clear finding that the appellants were avoiding service, that ordinary service was impracticable, or that reasonable diligence had been exhausted.

The subsequent publication established only that publication occurred; it did not establish legally effective service.

The record also lacked material showing that the newspaper had adequate circulation in the appellants’ place of residence or that publication actually or reasonably brought the proceedings to their knowledge.

Given that the decree concerned specific performance, execution of a sale deed, and perpetual injunction affecting immovable property, heightened care was required before proceeding ex parte.

The second proviso to Order IX Rule 13 was consequently inapplicable because there was no convincing evidence that the appellants knew of the suit or had sufficient time to defend it.

The trial court’s order dated 29 August 2024 dismissing the restoration application was quashed, and the ex parte judgment and decree dated 23 August 2017 were set aside.

The suit was restored to its original number and to the stage at which it stood on 16 November 2013.

The appellants were directed to appear before the trial court and file their written statements within 60 days of appearance.

The trial court was directed to decide the suit afresh in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the High Court’s observations on the merits.