### Proof of Actual Service and Delivery is Essential for Effecting Valid Service via Electronic Modes

The respondent/plaintiff filed a commercial suit for recovery of ₹15,55,328/- against the appellant/defendant.

Summons were purportedly issued via speed post and electronic modes.

On 06.01.2022, the Trial Court proceeded ex parte against the appellant, eventually passing an ex parte decree on 06.07.2023.

The appellant claimed to have learned of the decree only upon being served in execution proceedings on 15.03.2024 and subsequently filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the decree.

The District Judge (Commercial Court) dismissed the application, leading to the present appeal.

Whether the appellant was duly served with summons in the underlying suit through either physical or electronic modes.

Whether the non-appearance of the appellant was intentional or due to a lack of valid service.

The court applied Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC, which mandates setting aside an ex parte decree if the defendant satisfies the court that summons were not duly served or there was sufficient cause for non-appearance.

It relied on Electricity Regulatory Commission v. National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited, affirming that while service via email is valid in commercial litigation, actual proof of delivery is required.

Furthermore, the court cited Sushil Kumar Sabharwal v. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. to underscore the necessity of verifying the integrity of service before proceeding ex parte.

The court found significant discrepancies in the respondent’s proof of service.

While the respondent claimed speed post delivery at Faridabad on 13.09.2021, the tracking report showed the consignment was booked at Kashmere Gate (not Rohini) and delivered to "New Delhi GPO," not the appellant’s Faridabad address.

Regarding electronic service, the court observed that the record lacked delivery reports, server confirmations, or evidence that the email did not bounce.

The mere assertion of "double ticks" on WhatsApp, without a corroborating affidavit or acknowledgement of receipt, was held insufficient to constitute proof of actual service.

The court concluded the Trial Court failed to undertake a thorough examination of the service reality before dismissing the appellant's application.

The court held that service was not conclusively established through any mode.

The suit was restored to its original position, and parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court on 16.03.2026.