ARUNDAS Vs. PRIJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unexpendable imperative for courts to ensure valid and proper service of summons and notices to defendants in a suit and other proceedings can never be overstated. The one singular precaution that courts have to be always cognizant of, to avert challenge to its orders and proceedings, is to make sure that the parties to litigation are served as per the prescription of the statutory provisions relating to such.

(2.) Although the term "summons" is not defined in the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the CPC'), its proper service on the defendant is a fundamental rule of procedure. The significance of valid service of summons, in whatever way it may be effected, is that the defendant will be informed of the institution of the suit or the proceeding against him and he will thus be extended sufficient opportunity to resist it. The defendant's actual knowledge of the suit or proceeding would, in most cases, become irrelevant if service of summons or notice on him, as per the statutory mandate, is shown beyond reasonable doubt.

(3.) The importance of this can never be lost sight of when we see that first defence and sometimes offence, to a suit or proceeding and to the orders and decrees passed by courts, that can be impelled by a defendant, is that he had not been validly served with summons or notice when the law mandated such service in a particular manner. It is well established that when the law provides something to be done in a particular manner then it has to be done in the same manner.