Restrictive Approach In Substituted Service Stalls Justice: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has overturned a Trial Court's refusal to permit substituted service in a 33-year-old property dispute, ruling that judicial proceedings cannot be held hostage to a defendant's untraceable whereabouts when bona fide efforts to serve notice have been exhausted. Justice Virinder Aggarwal delivered this significant ruling while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Constitution of India. The Bench was hearing a revision petition challenging an order that had effectively frozen a suit instituted in 1991 due to the petitioner's inability to provide the current address of a defendant.

Key Takeaways

Curbing Indefinite Delays

The Punjab and Haryana High Court emphasized that litigation cannot remain in a state of perpetual limbo simply because a defendant’s current address is unavailable despite diligent efforts.

Mandate for Independent Satisfaction

While cautioning against the mechanical application of Order V Rule 20, the Court clarified that judges must exercise independent mind to determine if a defendant is evading service.

Precedence of Substituted Service

The ruling reinforces that substituted service is a vital procedural tool to prevent the frustration of justice in cases where ordinary service is proven impossible.

The Court's Rationale on Substituted Service

The Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that the Trial Court had adopted an "unduly restrictive approach" by dismissing the application for newspaper publication. It noted that the suit had been pending since 1991 and was adjourned sine die because the defendant could not be traced. The petitioner had provided the only addresses available in the General Power of Attorney and the sale deed dated 1991. The Bench highlighted that in connected proceedings, the same defendant had already been served through substituted means and proceeded against ex parte.

Referring to the legal framework under Order V Rule 20 of the CPC, the High Court noted that the provision empowers courts to direct substituted service when satisfied that the defendant is evading service or cannot be served in the ordinary manner. The Punjab and Haryana High Court cited Smruti Pahariya vs. Sanjay Pahariya and M/s. Neerja Realtors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Janglu (Dead) through Legal Representative to reiterate that while such orders must not be passed mechanically, they are necessary when statutory conditions are met.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that “The Trial Court ought not to have allowed the proceedings to remain indefinitely stalled merely because the petitioner could not furnish a fresh address, without duly considering the material placed on record.”

Ratio

Judicial proceedings cannot be adjourned sine die or indefinitely stalled due to the inability of a plaintiff to provide a fresh address for a defendant when reasonable efforts have been made and the history of the case suggests that ordinary service is impossible; in such circumstances, the Trial Court must exercise its discretion under Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure to allow substituted service through publication.

Background

The dispute originated from a suit filed in 1991 involving a property transaction. The petitioner-plaintiff No. 6(ii) sought to serve respondent-defendant No. 1 but could not ascertain a current address. The only known addresses were derived from documents executed in June and September 1991. The petitioner moved an application under Order V Rule 20 read with Section 151 of the CPC for substituted service via newspaper publication. This application was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuh, on December 8, 2023, leading to the present revision.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court found that the lower court failed to consider the 33-year pendency and the fact that the petitioner had exhausted all available means. By setting aside the impugned order, the High Court allowed the application for substituted service, ensuring the decades-old suit could finally move toward adjudication.

Case Details:
Case No.: CR-1599-2024 (O&M)
Case Title: JIWAN DASS(SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS Versus VIJAI KUMAR AND OTHERS
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Akshay Kumar Goel, Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PNH) 30030