RAM DAS Vs. MOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been preferred to this Court against the impugned order dated 19.10.94 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur in C.M.A. No. 20/94, whereby the Appellate Court has confirmed the order of the Trial Court in C.M.A. No. 55/91 by dismissing the petitioner's application for setting aside order/decree under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the non -petitioners had filed a suit against the petitioners for recovery of rent and eviction from the disputed shop premises, in which the petitioners are residing as a tenant, on the ground of default and material alterations. The Trial Court had directed the plaintiff vide its order dated 4.2.89 to effect service on the petitioners defendants by filing the notices and the process fee with registered post as per the rules for 12th of July, 1989. It has been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the non -petitioners had not filed registration fee and instead had got the service affected on the petitioners by substituted service in accordance with rules as envisaged by Order 5 Rule 20, CPC. In the impugned order, Trial Court has observed that since the service was not effected in an ordinary manner, the substituted service was the only recourse left open to the plaintiff to get the service of summons effected on the petitioners. It has come on the record that the petitioners are tenants in the shop premises at the ground floor of the same building, in which the plaintiffs/non -petitioners are residing as landlords on the first floor of the same building. Since the process server had failed to get the service affected on the petitioners in an ordinary manner on account of their refusal to accept the summons issued by the Trial Court, the process server adopted the procedure of effecting substituted service by affixation of the summons on the outer door of the house/shop premises at the first floor of the same building at a conspicuous place in the presence of two witnesses of the locality. Order 5 Rule 20(1) of CPC reads as under : "Where the Court is satisfied that there is reason to believe that the defendant is keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service, or that for any other reason the summons cannot be served in the ordinary way, the Court shall order the summons to be served by affixing a copy thereof in some conspicuous place in the Court house, and also upon some conspicuous part of the house (if any) in which the defendant is known to have last resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain, or in such other manner as the Court thinks fit."

(3.) IT is the mode of substituted service, which has been challenged by the petitioners in the present revision petition on the ground that since the Trial Court had directed to effect the service of summons by a registered post, therefore, it was not open to the process server to effect the service of summons in a manner, in which it had been done as aforesaid.