RAGHUBIR SAHAI BHATNAGAR Vs. BHAKT SAJJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the First Additional District Judge, Allahabad dismissing applicant' s revision filed under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act. The revision came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court. He was of the opinion that since the question involved in the case was important one, which very frequently arises in the courts below, an authoritative decision was necessary to be given by a larger Bench. At the instance of the reference made by the learned Single Judge, the revision has come up before us for hearing.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the facts giving rise to this revision are that the applicant was a tenant of a house situated in Allahabad of which the opposite party is the landlord. The opposite party filed a suit against the applicant for recovery of arrears of rent and his ejectment before the Court of Judge, Small Causes at Allahabad. On the date of hearing fixed by the court, the applicant-defendant was absent; the Court held service of summons sufficient and decreed the suit of the plaintiff ex parte on 28-9-1972. The applicant filed a restoration application under O. IX R. 13 of the Civil P. C. on the ground that there was no due service of the summons and he had no knowledge of the date of hearing. The trial court dismissed the application holding that the petitioner had knowledge of the date of hearing and he had no sufficient cause for his absence on the date of hearing. The defendant-applicant thereafter preferred revision against the order of the trial court before the District Judge dismissing the restoration application. The revision was dismissed and the findings of the trial court were affirmed. The Additional District Judge held that the applicant had refused to accept the summons and he had full knowledge of the date of hearing fixed in the suit and he had no valid cause or reason for his absence. Aggrieved, the defendant-applicant has filed this revision under S. 115 of the Civil P. C. for setting aside the ex parte decree and orders of the courts below.

(3.) SHRI K. C. Saksena, learned counsel for the applicant, contended that even on the findings recorded by the courts below there was no due service of summons on the defendant-applicant as the process server failed to comply with the procedure as laid down under O. V, R. 17 of the Civil P. C. inasmuch as on the defendant' s refusal to accept the summons the process server did not affix a copy of the summons at the outer door or at some other conspicuous place of the defendant' s house in which the defendant may have been ordinarily residing or carrying on his business. We have given our anxious consideration to this question but we find no merit in it. The Civil P. C. provides various modes for service of summons on the defendant. Firstly, service may be effected by tendering or delivering summons to the defendant personally by an officer of the Court and if it is not practicable to serve the defendant personally then summons is to be personally served on the agent authorised to accept the same on behalf of the defendant (O. V. R. 10). Secondly, service may be made on an adult male member of the house of the defendant who may be residing with him if the defendant cannot be found or has no authorised agent who could accept service. The third mode of service is prescribed by R. 17 which lays down that where the defendant or his agent or other person of his family refuses to sign the acknowledgement or where the serving officer cannot find the defendant or an agent empowered to accept service of summons or any other person on whom service can be made, the serving officer is to affix a copy of the summons on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the defendant may ordinarily be residing or carrying on business. The serving officer is required to return the original to the court with a report stating that he had affixed the copy of the summons on the door along with the name and address of the persons in whose presence the copy may have been affixed. Rule 20 contains provisions for substituted service by affixing a copy on some conspicuous place in the court house or upon some conspicuous part of the house in which the defendant is known to have last resided or carried on his business. Rule 20-A provides for service of summons on the defendant by registered post in addition to or in lieu of other modes of service of summons.