Order V Rule 20 CPC | Email Service of Summons Valid If Compliant with High Court Circulars: Karnataka HC Directs Reconsideration

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that trial courts cannot mechanically refuse applications for service of summons by email under Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The judgment underscores the mandatory nature of considering such applications, especially when compliance with High Court circulars is demonstrated, and directs the trial court to pass appropriate orders within a week.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Exergic Education Pvt. Ltd., filed a civil suit (O.S. No. 3092/2024) before the XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, seeking relief against the respondent, Nishanth Kumar. The petitioner sought to serve summons on the respondent by email, citing difficulties in physical service and compliance with High Court circulars. The trial court, however, refused to permit email service by order dated 01.08.2025, leading to the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Key Facts

• The petitioner filed the suit in 2024, but summons could not be served on the respondent despite multiple attempts.
• The petitioner filed an Interlocutory Application (I.A.) under Order V Rule 20 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking permission to serve summons via email.
• The petitioner submitted an affidavit and supporting documents demonstrating compliance with the High Court’s circular dated 17.02.2025, which permits service of summons by email under certain conditions.
• The respondent allegedly replied to the petitioner’s email after the interim injunction was granted, indicating awareness of the proceedings but willful refusal to accept physical service.

Procedural History

• 2024: Suit (O.S. No. 3092/2024) filed before the XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
• 01.08.2025: Trial court refused the petitioner’s application for email service of summons.
• 2026: Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 19212 of 2026 (GM-CPC) before the Karnataka High Court challenging the trial court’s order.
• 13.07.2026: High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the trial court’s order.

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought the following reliefs:

• Quashing of the trial court’s order dated 01.08.2025 refusing email service of summons.
• Direction to the trial court to consider the application under Order V read with Section 151 CPC and permit service of summons by email.
• Compliance with the High Court’s circular dated 17.02.2025 regarding service of summons.

The Legal Issue

The central question before the High Court was whether a trial court can refuse to consider an application for service of summons by email under Order V CPC, particularly when the applicant has complied with the procedural requirements laid down by the High Court’s circulars and demonstrated reasonable grounds for such service.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

• The petitioner relied on the High Court’s circular dated 17.02.2025, which permits service of summons by email under specified conditions.
• It was argued that the petitioner had complied with all formalities, including filing an affidavit and supporting documents, to demonstrate the necessity of email service.
• The petitioner contended that the respondent was aware of the proceedings, as evidenced by their reply to the petitioner’s email after the interim injunction was granted.
• Reference was made to the coordinate bench judgment in Dhalitha Vividha Gramodyoga Kaigarika Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha (R) v. Samatha Sainika Dal SSD (W.P. No. 35488/2025), which emphasized the trial court’s duty to consider applications for interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
• It was submitted that the trial court’s refusal to consider the application was contrary to the High Court’s circulars and amounted to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.

For the Respondent

The judgment does not record any arguments presented by the respondent.

The Court's Analysis

The High Court critically examined the trial court’s order and held that it failed to appreciate the petitioner’s contentions or the legal framework governing service of summons. The Court relied on the following key principles:

1. Duty of the Trial Court: The Court emphasized that when an application is filed under Order V read with Section 151 CPC, the trial court is obliged to consider it and cannot refuse it mechanically. The trial court must provide reasons for either granting or rejecting such an application.

   "When an I.A. is filed under Order V r/w Section 151 of CPC, to issue suit summons to the defendant by way of email and also having complied with all the formalities as laid down by the High Court in its circular dated 17.02.2025, the trial Court ought to have considered the same."

2. Compliance with High Court Circulars: The Court noted that the petitioner had complied with the High Court’s circular dated 17.02.2025, which permits service of summons by email under certain conditions. The trial court’s failure to consider this compliance was held to be erroneous.

3. Precedents on Interim Relief: The Court referred to its earlier judgment in Karnataka State Cricket Association v. Mr. Shashidhara A.V. (W.P. No. 33725/2025), which laid down guidelines for trial courts dealing with applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The Court reiterated that trial courts cannot merely issue notice to the defendant without considering the merits of the application for interim relief.

4. Supreme Court Judgments: The Court also cited the Supreme Court’s judgments in Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi ((1993) 3 SCC 161) and Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow v. State of U.P. and Others (2025 SCC Online SC 1674), which emphasize the importance of judicial consideration of interim applications and the need to provide reasoned orders.

5. Awareness of Proceedings: The Court took note of the petitioner’s submission that the respondent had replied to the email after the interim injunction was granted, indicating awareness of the proceedings. This further underscored the necessity of permitting email service.

The Verdict

The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the trial court’s order dated 01.08.2025. The Court directed the trial court to reconsider the petitioner’s application under Order V read with Section 151 CPC for service of summons by email, in accordance with the High Court’s circular dated 17.12.2025, and to pass appropriate orders within one week from the date of receipt of the High Court’s order. The matter was listed for 15.07.2026, and pending interlocutory applications, if any, were closed.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Trial Courts Must Consider Applications for Email Service

• Trial courts can no longer mechanically refuse applications for service of summons by email under Order V CPC. They must provide reasoned orders for either granting or rejecting such applications.
• Practitioners should ensure compliance with High Court circulars governing email service and submit supporting affidavits and documents to demonstrate necessity.

Compliance with Circulars Is Mandatory

• The judgment reinforces that High Court circulars are binding on trial courts. Failure to comply with such circulars can result in orders being set aside under Article 227 of the Constitution.
• Parties seeking email service must strictly adhere to the procedural requirements laid down in the circulars, including filing affidavits and proof of attempts at physical service.

Awareness of Proceedings Can Justify Alternative Service

• Where a defendant willfully refuses to accept physical service but demonstrates awareness of the proceedings (e.g., by replying to emails), courts are more likely to permit alternative modes of service, such as email.
• Practitioners should document all interactions with the defendant to establish awareness and justify the need for email service.