SITARAM Vs. DIWAKARKANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff brought a suit against Diwakar Kant, for the recovery of Rs. 1,200/ -which had been borrowed by his father, who has died since. From the record before me it seems that the summons against the defendant were sent on 25 -3 -52 to the Court of Munsiff, Guna. The process -server returned the summons with an endorsement that the defendant lived in village Sungai, and that the village was not within the jurisdiction of the Court. When the summons returned unserved, the plaintiff applied to the Court for substituted service: This application was allowed and the Court ordered that the summons be sent to the defendant through registered post. Later on, the court also ordered that the summons be published in the newspaper. This was done and when the defendant did not appear, it passed an ex -parte decree on 19 -9 -52. On 3 -7 -53, the defendant applied to the Court for setting aside the ex -parte decree on the ground that he acquired knowledge that a decree had been passed against him on 11 -6 -53 and, that no summons were ever served on him. The trial Court rejected the contention of the defendant and refused to set aside the ex -parte decree. On appeal the Civil Judge First Class, Gwalior, who was the appellate Authority, allowed the appeal and set aside the ex -pone decree. It is against this order that the present revision is filed.

(2.) FROM the facts that I have given above, it is obvious that no attempt to serve the summons on the defendant was at all made. The summons that were sent to the Munsiff's court, Guna, were returned unserved, not because the defendant could not be found but because the process -server did not go to the village in which the defendant lived on the ground that the village was not within the jurisdiction of his court. In these circumstances the summons remained unserved and instead of sending the summons to the Court within whose jurisdiction Sungai village lay, on the application of the plaintiff, the court ordered substituted service, first by sending the summons through the registered post and subsequently by having the summons published in the news -papers. Both these methods which the trial Court adopted are wrong and are not provided for in the Civil Procedure Code. Order 5 of the C.P Code deals with the issuing of summons for service on the defendant. Order 5 Rule 20 of the Civil Procedure Code lays down in what circumstances substituted service should be ordered and how that should be done. Order 5 Rule 20 of the Civil Procedure Code runs as follows: - -

(3.) FOR reasons stated above I see no reason to interfere in revision and dismiss the revision with costs,