ORDER :

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without adhering to the provisions given under Order 5 Rule 17 of CPC, the learned trial Court passed the order for substituted service of summons which is not permissible. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Tulsi Bai Vs. Mukesh Kumar, reported in 2014 (3) CGLJ, 316.

2. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff would submit that the petitioner/defendant No.1 was avoiding service of summons, therefore, an application was moved for substituted service and same was allowed and thus, it may be presumed that summons was duly served upon defendant No.1. He would further submit that in the execution proceedings summons was served. Apparently, summons vide Annexure R 1/2 dated 14.11.2010 shows the signature of the petitioner/defendant No.1 and this fact has been observed by the learned trial Court as well as learned appellate Court whereas the same has been suppressed by the petitioner in this petition, therefore, there is no scope of interference and there is concurrent finding recorded by courts below, thus the petition preferred by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records with utmost circumspection.

4. From perusal of the order-sheets of the Civil Suit No. 05/2019, it appears that on 20.11.2008 summons was issued to the defendants through ordinary as well as registered post for their appearance on 15.12.2008. On 15.12.2008 summons was served upon the defendant No. 2, whereas registered summons sent to the other defendants was returned unserved. On the very date an application was moved by the plaintiff for service of summons upon defendant No.1 by affixing it on conspicuous part of his house where defendant No.1 already resides. On 17.12.2008 order was passed on that application and the plaintiff was permitted to serve summons upon defendant No.1 by substituted service through paper publication and thereafter, summons was published in the Hindi Daily Newspaper Dainik Bhaskar and thus, it was held by learned trial Court that the summons has been served upon defendant No.1 and consequently, judgment and decree was passed on 20.07.2009.

5. Order 5 Rule 12 of CPC deals with service to be on defendant in person when practicable, or on his agent, Order 5 Rule 17 of CPC deals with procedure when defendant refuses to accept service, or cannot be found and Order 5 Rule 20 of CPC deals with substituted service. The provisions of Order 5 Rules 12, 17 & 20 of CPC are reproduced herein below:- “Order 5 of CPC provides for issue and service of summons:

Rule 12 – Service to be on defendant in person when practicable, or on his agent.– Wherever it is practicable, service shall be made on the defendant in person, unless he has an agent empowered to accept service, in which case service on such agent shall be sufficient.

Rule 17 – Procedure when defendant refuses to accept service, or cannot be found.– 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 addr