Affixing Summons After the Defendant Leaves the Village
On 12 August 2024, you are the process server attached to the District Court at Nalgonda. A summons in O.S. No. 142 of 2024, filed by the plaintiff against B. Ramulu, is entrusted to you for service in Chityala village. You reach the house at 11:10 a.m. Ramulu's wife, an adult, is present. She says her husband left for Hyderabad three months ago, she does not know his address or phone number, and she will not sign any paper. Two adult neighbours are watching from the veranda. You affix a copy of the summons on the outer door, prepare a return saying 'defendant not found; copy affixed', and return the original to the court. Ramulu later appears through counsel and argues that the affixing was illegal because no court order permitted it. The plaintiff's advocate argues that affixing alone completes service. The judge asks you to explain what you did and why.
1. Was affixing the summons on the outer door lawful in these circumstances? Explain the conditions the CPC lays down before a serving officer may affix a copy, and apply them to the facts.
Read the worked answer
Affixing is not illegal merely because no prior court order was obtained. Order V Rule 17 CPC permits a serving officer to affix a copy on the outer door or another conspicuous part of the defendant's house when, after due and reasonable diligence, the defendant cannot be found and there is no agent or adult male member of the family residing with him on whom service can be made. It also covers refusal by the defendant or such agent or member. The normal sequence is personal service (Rule 12), then service on an agent or adult male family member (Rule 15), and only then affixing (Rule 17). A prior court order is required for the broader substituted service under Order V Rule 20, such as advertisement or affixing at the court-house, not for Rule 17 affixing.
On these facts, the wife is an adult family member but not an 'adult male member' within Rule 15. The process server should have checked whether any adult male member was present. If none was present, affixing could be lawful, but only if he had used due diligence to find the defendant. One visit, without asking for the Hyderabad address or trying postal service, may not satisfy 'due and reasonable diligence'. The return must disclose these facts. The defendant's claim that affixing is automatically illegal is too broad; the plaintiff's claim that affixing automatically completes service is also too broad. The court decides on the evidence.
2. What particulars must your return state to make it acceptable as evidence of service? Draft the key lines of the return.
Read the worked answer
A return of service is not a mere note. Under Order V Rule 18, it is evidence, and the court may examine the serving officer. It should state: (i) the suit number and the defendant's name; (ii) the date and exact time of each visit; (iii) the place and description of the house; (iv) who was present and what was said; (v) the attempts made to serve personally, including enquiries about the defendant's whereabouts; (vi) why personal service or service on an adult male family member was not possible; (vii) the fact, date, time and place of affixing, and the names and addresses of witnesses present; (viii) that the original summons is returned; and (ix) the process server's signature and date.
Key lines: 'I visited the house on 12.08.2024 at 11:10 a.m. The defendant was not present. His wife, Smt. ..., stated that he had gone to Hyderabad three months earlier and that she did not know his address or phone number. No adult male member of the family was present. I affixed a copy on the outer door at 11:25 a.m. in the presence of (names). I returned the original summons herewith.' Avoid legal conclusions such as 'service is complete'.
3. If the court holds that service is invalid, what steps can the plaintiff take to bring Ramulu before the court without restarting the entire suit?
Read the worked answer
The plaintiff need not restart the suit. The plaintiff can apply for fresh summons and attempt personal service or service by registered post, speed post or courier with acknowledgment. If there is material to show that Ramulu is avoiding service or cannot be served in the ordinary way, the plaintiff can apply under Order V Rule 20 for substituted service. The court may then permit affixing at the court-house and at the defendant's last known residence, or publication in a newspaper. If a Hyderabad address becomes known, the plaintiff can seek service through the court having jurisdiction there or by post. The plaintiff should not rely on the defective affixing alone, and should not seek ex parte proceedings until valid service is proved. The court may also examine the process server on his return.