In Brief
In this civil appeal, the Supreme Court upheld a High Court decision setting aside an ex-parte decree for specific performance of a land sale agreement. The trial court had granted substituted service (publication in a newspaper) without first affixing the summons at the defendant's last known residence, as required by CPC Order V Rule 17. The High Court found the trial court's order permitting substituted service was cryptic and showed insufficient application of mind to statutory requirements. The Supreme Court held that substituted service is an exception requiring careful judicial consideration, and that Rule 17 must be followed before other modes. Since proper notice was not given, the ex-parte decree was justifiably set aside.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.