Order V Rule 20 CPC substituted service cannot be granted on grounds of "tedious process" without recording judicial satisfaction of service avoidance.

The Petitioner, a Cooperative Bank, admitted 1,105 persons as members via a resolution dated 18.09.2023

Respondents 1–13 (disputants) challenged this resolution under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, and sought to implead all 1,105 new members as opponents

While some notices were served, many returned unserved with remarks like "unclaimed" or "refused," and over 500 members remained entirely unserved

The disputants filed an application (Exhibit 42) seeking substituted service via newspaper publication on the grounds that personal service to 1,100 people was a "tedious job"

On the same day the application was filed (14.05.2025), the Cooperative Court allowed it without recording a statement of satisfaction

The Cooperative Appellate Court upheld this order on 18.09.2025

The Petitioner-Bank challenged these orders via the present Writ Petition

The court primarily applied Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, which mandates that the court must be "satisfied" there is reason to believe the defendant is avoiding service or cannot be served in the ordinary way before ordering substituted service

It relied on Neerja Realtors Private Limited v. Janglu [(2018) 2 SCC 649], which held that recording such satisfaction is a mandatory prerequisite and cryptic orders lacking reasoning are unsustainable

It further applied Ramesh Jagannath Ingole v. Shakunbai Ganesh Ingole [2015(6) ALL MR 286] and Indore Holding Pvt. Ltd. & Others v. Chimanlal & Others [(2019) 2 MP LJ 215], establishing that substituted service is a "last resort" and courts have a statutory obligation to record germane reasons for its justification

The court also considered Rule 78 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules regarding modes of service

The court found that the Cooperative Court’s order was "cryptic and unreasoned," passed on the same day the application was filed "on mere asking"

The High Court emphasized that the disputants' primary justification—that serving 1,100 members was "tedious"—failed to satisfy the legal threshold of Order V Rule 20

The analysis noted that the disputants failed to exhaust regular modes of service, such as verification of addresses or affixture at the last known residence (Order V Rule 17), and did not seek the Bank’s assistance under Rule 78(2) to obtain correct addresses

The court reasoned that since the litigation involved the cancellation of membership rights, mechanical service via publication without a genuine attempt at personal service would cause serious prejudice to the parties

The court concluded that the lower courts' failure to discuss settled precedents and the lack of an recorded "satisfaction" regarding the avoidance of service rendered the impugned orders illegal

The Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the orders of the Cooperative Court dated 14.05.2025 and the Cooperative Appellate Court dated 18.09.2025. Application Exhibit 42 was rejected. However, the court clarified that the disputants remain entitled to take fresh steps for service through peripheral permissible modes under Order V and may re-apply for substituted service if genuine satisfaction is established in the future