Procedure when defendant refuses to accept service, or cannot be found
Full Text
Where the defendant or his agent or such other person as aforesaid refuses to sign the acknowledgment, or where the serving officer, after using all due and reasonable diligence, cannot find the defendant, who is absent from his residence at the time when service is sought to be effected on him at his residence and there is no likelihood of his being found at the residence within a reasonable time and there is no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, nor any other person on whom service can be made, the serving officer shall affix a copy of the summons on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the defendant ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, and shall then return the original to the Court from which it was issued, with a report endorsed thereon or annexed thereto stating that he has so affixed the copy, the circumstances under which he did so, and the name and address of the person (if any) by whom the house was identified and in whose presence the copy was affixed.
Plain English Summary
Governs service by affixture (चस्पा तामील) where the defendant refuses to sign the acknowledgment or cannot be found despite due diligence, mandating strict compliance with reporting, witnessing, and house identification procedures.
Key Legal Elements
- Due and Reasonable Diligence: Process server must demonstrate genuine, repeated attempts to locate the defendant.
- Two Trigger Conditions: (1) Outright refusal to sign acknowledgment, OR (2) Untraceable absence with no available agent or adult family member.
- Mandatory Affixture: Must be affixed to the outer door or conspicuous part of actual ordinary residence/workplace.
- Rigorous Report Requirements: Name and address of identifying person, witnessing neighbors, exact time, and factual narrative.
- Examination under Rule 19: Affixture report must be verified by affidavit, failing which court must examine process server on oath.
Practical Note
The Master Authority on Affixture Service (चस्पा तामील): 1. Supreme Court Landmark - Sushil Kumar Sabharwal v. Gurpreet Singh (2002) 5 SCC 377: The Supreme Court held that service by affixture under Rule 17 is an extraordinary mode. The process server must use all 'due and reasonable diligence'. Merely visiting the premises once and pasting the summons without local witnesses or identification of the house is fatal, and an ex parte decree founded on such affixture MUST be set aside under Order IX Rule 13. 2. Checklist for Defeating Fraudulent Affixture: — Did the process server obtain signatures of independent local witnesses residing in the immediate neighborhood? — Was the house identified by a named, verifiable person? — Was an affidavit filed by the process server under Rule 19? 3. Written Statement / Application under Order IX Rule 13: Plead: 'The alleged service by affixture is fraudulent and void ab initio, being in direct violation of the mandatory requirements of Order V Rule 17 CPC as laid down in Sushil Kumar Sabharwal v. Gurpreet Singh'.
हिंदी पाठ
जहां प्रतिवादी या उसका अभिकर्ता या पूर्वोक्त जैसा कोई अन्य व्यक्ति पावती पर हस्ताक्षर करने से इनकार करता है, अथवा जहां तामीलकर्ता अधिकारी समस्त सम्यक् और युक्तियुक्त तत्परता बरतने के पश्चात भी प्रतिवादी को नहीं पा सकता है, जो उस समय अपने निवास-स्थान से अनुपस्थित है और जिसके उचित समय में निवास-स्थान पर मिलने की कोई संभावना नहीं है तथा उसकी ओर से तामील स्वीकार करने वाला कोई अन्य व्यक्ति भी नहीं है, वहां तामीलकर्ता अधिकारी समन की एक प्रति उस मकान के बाहरी द्वार पर या किसी अन्य सहजदृश्य भाग पर चस्पा (Affix) करेगा जिसमें प्रतिवादी मामूली तौर पर निवास करता है या कारबार चलाता है अथवा अभिलाभ के लिए स्वयं काम करता है, और तब वह मूल समन को उस न्यायालय को उस पर पृष्ठांकित या संलग्न इस रिपोर्ट के साथ वापस करेगा कि उसने प्रतिलिपि इस प्रकार चस्पा कर दी है, किन परिस्थितियों में ऐसा किया तथा उस व्यक्ति का नाम और पता जिसके द्वारा मकान की पहचान की गई थी और जिसकी उपस्थिति में प्रतिलिपि चस्पा की गई थी।