#substituted service

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that substituted service under Order V Rule 20 CPC does not constitute 'due service' for the purpose of Article 123 of the Limitation Act, allowing condonation of delay if applications are filed within 30 days of knowledge of an ex parte decree. This holding ensures litigants are not prejudiced by procedural technicalities in service of summons.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has ruled that service through WhatsApp and affixation at the last known address constitutes valid substituted service under Order V of the CPC when conventional methods are unavailing. This sets a binding precedent for execution proceedings across the state, empowering litigants to overcome evasion by judgment debtors in an era of digital communication.

MP High Court rules that procedural flaws in notice affixation under the Land Revenue Code are cured if the party had actual knowledge of proceedings and participated in appeals. The judgment reinforces that natural justice is satisfied where substantive fairness is achieved, protecting revenue authorities from technical setbacks in encroachment cases.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that a suit dismissed for procedural non-compliance must be restored if an application for substituted service under Order 5 Rule 20 CPC was pending, emphasizing that procedural oversights cannot defeat substantive justice. This decision reinforces the court's power under Section 151 CPC to correct injustices arising from administrative lapses in trial courts.

Gauhati High Court rules that strict compliance with Order V Rule 17 CPC-affixation of summons-is a prerequisite for substituted service via newspaper publication. Non-compliance renders ex-parte decrees void, even if defendants had actual notice, reinforcing procedural safeguards in civil disputes.

Bombay High Court permits substituted service via email under Order V Rule 9A CPC when traditional methods fail, setting a precedent for digital service in civil litigation.