The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of balancing equities, upholding the principle of natural justice, and giving adequate opportunity to the parties to present their case.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

( 1 ) THE present Appeal has been filed by Smt. Renu Sharma, the appellant, for setting aside Order dated 11th December, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing her application under Order IX, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code, for short ).

( 2 ) THE appellant herein is the defendant in the Suit-CS (OS) No. 898/2003. The said suit has been filed by M/s. Titan Industries Ltd. , the respondent, for recovery of goods and damages and in the alternative, a decree for recovery of rs. 1,60,05,742/ -.

( 3 ) IT is alleged in the Suit that the appellant herein being one of the franchisees/agents of the respondent had been dealing with the respondent since 2nd October, 1996.

( 4 ) THE appellant could not be served by ordinary process and was served by publication in the newspaper 'the Statesman? and was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 23rd April, 2004 The appellant moved an application for setting aside of the ex-parte Order on 2nd June, 2006. The said application was registered as I. A. No. 7184/2006. By the impugned Order this application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

( 5 ) LEARNED Single Judge rejected the application of the appellant herein, filed under Order IX, Rule 7 of the Code, inter alia, holding that three attempts were made to serve notice upon the appellant herein by registered post as well as ordinary process but without success. Learned Single Judge relying upon the reports of the process server as well as the postal authorities, came to the conclusion that the appellant herein was avoiding service and accordingly had rightly directed substituted service through publication.

( 6 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties who have drawn our attention to the reports of the process server and the postal authorities. During the course of hearing, learned senior counsel for the appellant had stated that he is ready and willing to pay costs of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent in case the Order directing ex-parte proceedings is set aside.

( 7 ) IT may be relevant to state here that the above-mentioned Suit was filed on 29th March, 2003. Vide Order dated 24th April, 2003 notice was issued restraining the appellant herein, her agents and nominees from alienating, transferring, creating a mortgage, etc. the properties mentioned in the Schedule attached to the application for stay and the goods mentioned in Annexure-A to the plaint. Order-sheet shows that the defendant-appellant herein could not be served for the next date i. e. 11th July, 2003 and accordingly fresh notices were directed to be issued for 10th September, 2003. On 10th September, 2003, as per service reports, the appellant was out of India and therefore the Court directed issue of fresh summons for 25th November, 2003.

( 8 ) THE respondent-plaintiff had filed an application under Order V, Rule 20 of the Code for substituted service by publication but the Court vide Order dated 10th September, 2003 rejected the said request. However, the said prayer was allowed by the next Order dated 25th November, 2003 with a direction that the appellant be served by substituted means by publication in the newspaper ?the statesman? for 10th March, 2004 Thereafter, on the basis of publication, vide order dated 23rd April, 2004, the defendant-appellant herein was proceeded ex-parte.

( 9 ) THE reports of the process server and the postal authorities indicate that on each occasion, neither the process server nor the post man was able to meet the appellant personally and tender summons to her.

( 10 ) THE reports of the postman show that service on the two addresses at patparganj and Hauz Khas village could not be served as no such person/firm was found. Summons could not be personally served on the appellant at 9b, telegraphic Lane, New Delhi and the postman recorded that intimations were issued and thereafter the envelopes containing the summons were returned back as 'unclaimed'. The