In Brief
Neerja Realtors (appellant) obtained an ex-parte decree for specific performance of a land-sale agreement against an original defendant. The High Court set aside this decree, finding the trial court failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements for substituted service under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that substituted service is an exception requiring strict compliance with Order V Rules 17 and 20—the serving officer must first attempt affixing the summons on the defendant's residence, and the court must explicitly record its satisfaction that ordinary service is impossible or the defendant is evading service. A cryptic order permitting substituted service without demonstrating this requisite application of mind violates procedure, making the resulting ex-parte decree liable for setting aside.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.