Service is valid when summons are refused and affixed at the defendant’s correct address.

The respondent instituted Special Civil Suit No. 3 of 2018, later converted into Commercial Civil Suit No. 96 of 2019, against the petitioner.

The suit was decreed ex parte on 15 April 2023.

The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking recall of the decree on the ground that summons had not been duly served and had allegedly been served upon another person.

The Commercial Court rejected that application on 1 July 2025.

The petitioner’s appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(d), CPC, was dismissed by the Principal District Judge, Kutchh at Gandhidham, on 29 May 2026.

The petitioner then invoked Article 227 of the Constitution, principally challenging the appellate order and seeking a stay of execution proceedings.

The summons had been sent to the petitioner’s address, namely “M/s. M.S. Timber, 133/54, A-1, O Block, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur”.

The Bailiff reported that, on 8 February 2018, he met Manoj Shukla at that address, read over the summons to him, and that he refused to accept or sign it; the summons was thereafter affixed to the door of the premises.

The petitioner disputed the Bailiff’s report but did not disclose the identity of the alleged recipient or specifically deny that the summons had been affixed at his premises.

Whether the petition under Article 227 was maintainable when the petitioner had not directly challenged the Commercial Court’s order dated 1 July 2025 rejecting the application under Order IX Rule 13, CPC, but sought to assail the appellate order dated 29 May 2026.

Whether the petitioner established that the ex parte decree was liable to be set aside under Order IX Rule 13, CPC on the ground that summons had not been duly served.

Whether the service of summons by refusal and affixation at the petitioner’s correct address complied with Order V Rule 17, CPC, notwithstanding the petitioner’s denial of service.

Whether the subordinate courts committed any patent or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Article 227 of the Constitution confers supervisory jurisdiction that is exercised sparingly and does not permit interference absent a patent error of law, perversity, or jurisdictional error.

Under Order IX Rule 13, CPC, an ex parte decree may be set aside only where the defendant proves that summons was not duly served or that sufficient cause prevented appearance.

Order V Rule 17, CPC permits service by affixation where the defendant refuses to accept summons or cannot be found at the residence or place of business; the serving officer’s report is relevant evidence of such service.

The Court also considered Order V Rules 19 and 19A, CPC, and Clauses 32–36 of the Civil Manual concerning verification and examination of the serving officer, but held them inapplicable on the facts.

The principle in Sushil Kumar Sabharwal v. Gurpreet Singh, (2002) 5 SCC 377, concerning proper inquiry into service under Order V, was held not to apply because the petitioner had failed to raise and substantiate the relevant procedural objections.

The High Court found that the summons had been issued to the petitioner’s undisputed and correct address.

The Bailiff’s report specifically recorded that the petitioner was met, informed of the summons, refused to receive or sign it, and that the summons was affixed to the door.

The petitioner’s allegations that the summons was served on an unidentified third person were vague and unsupported; he neither named that person nor produced evidence to establish non-service.

Further, the petitioner did not specifically deny before the courts below that the summons had been affixed at the premises, and therefore could not raise procedural objections regarding affixation for the first time before the High Court.

Although he alleged that the Bailiff had submitted a false report, he did not initiate any proceedings or otherwise substantiate that allegation.

Accordingly, the courts below correctly treated the summons as duly served under Order V Rule 17, CPC, and their concurrent conclusions disclosed no patent or jurisdictional error warranting Article 227 interference.

The Bailiff’s report, refusal of service, and subsequent affixation at the petitioner’s correct address constituted sufficient service under Order V Rule 17, CPC.

No patent error of law or jurisdictional error was found in the orders of the Commercial Court or the Appellate Court.

The Article 227 petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.