1966 (8) TMI 75 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Setting aside an ex parte decree based on substituted service of summons under Order 5, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis:

The judgment involves an appeal against a decision concerning the setting aside of an ex parte decree in a money suit based on a promissory note executed by defendant no. 2 as the head of a Hindu undivided family. The trial court had rejected defendant no. 2's application to set aside the ex parte decree, leading to a miscellaneous appeal in the High Court. The main contention raised by the appellant was the validity of the substituted service of summons under Order 5, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant argued that the pre-requisite conditions for substituted service were not met as per the rules.

The appellate court considered the appellant's argument regarding the satisfaction of the trial court as a pre-requisite condition for ordering substituted service under Rule 20 of Order 5. The judgment highlighted that while the satisfaction of the trial court is essential, there was no explicit requirement in the law for the court to record reasons for such satisfaction before ordering substituted service. The court emphasized that the absence of specific mention in the order sheet did not invalidate the order for substituted service. The judgment pointed out that previous attempts were made for personal service of summons on the defendant, and the order for substituted service was based on these failed attempts.

The High Court concluded that there was sufficient material to presume that the trial court was satisfied with the need for substituted service before issuing the order. The judgment clarified that, in the absence of contrary evidence, the court must presume that the satisfaction requirement was met. Therefore, the court found no merit in the appeal challenging the validity of the substituted service order and dismissed the appeal with costs. The judgment emphasized the importance of following procedural rules while also highlighting the flexibility in interpreting the satisfaction requirement for substituted service under the Code of Civil Procedure.