Service of summons by affixation under Rule 17 of Order V, C. P. C. is not complete unless a copy of the plaint is also affixed along with the summons.

V. K. Mehrotra, A.C. J.—A suit was instituted by Purbia, who is the respondent in this revision, in the court of Senior Sub-Judge, Mandi, being suit No. 29 of 1979. The plea raised in the suit was that defendants nos. 2 and 3, namely, Karam Dass and Barthi, both his brother and sister, had transferred their l/3rd and l/6th share, respectively, in land on January 19, 1978 in favour of Singh, who is the applicant in this revision, for Rs. 3,000. This sale, according to the case set up in the plaint, was void as the property was joint Hindu family coparcenary property and there was no legal necessity and, therefore, Karam Dass could not alienate it. Also, that Barthi had no right to sell the property.

2. The suit was decreed ex parte as defendant no. 1, the present applicant, failed to appear inspite of service of summons upon him. The decree was passed on October 27, 1979 by which it was declared that the sale aforesaid was void. A decree for possession was also granted in favour of the plaintiff.

3. An application under Order IX, Rule 13, C. P. C. was made by Singh for setting aside the ex pane decree, on January 18, 1980. It was registered as Miscellaneous application No- 2 of 1980. The trial Judge came to the conclusion that the defendant was duly served and was, therefore, not entitled to the relief of setting aside of the ex parte decree. The finding was that the service of summons was effected upon him by affixation, in appeal, which Singh preferred against the aforesaid order, the conclusions arrived at by the trial Judge were affirmed. The appeal (C. M. A. No 6 of 1981) was dismissed on November 24, 1981 by the learned District Judge, Mandi. Thereafter, the present application in revision by Singh under section 115, C. P. C.

4. The submission which was initially made by Shri Rajeev Mehta, appearing for the applicant, was that the finding of the courts below that the applicant was duly served and had failed to contest the suit inspite of the service of summons effected on him, was erroneous. This submission can, however, not be contenanced in the present revision for the two courts below have, on appreciation of evidence on record, concurrently concluded that the applicant was served by affixation under Rule 17 of Order V, C. P. C.

5. Another submission which Shri Mehta made, was that in this case service of summons was not made in accordance with law, and, in the eyes of law, the applicant could not be treated to have been served even by affixation. In this context, Shri Mehta relies upon the observations made by the learned District Judge in the appellate order that a copy of the plaint had not, admittedly, been pasted alongwith the summons on the door of the applicant by the Process Server. This factual statement, in the order of the learned District Judge, has not been controverted by the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff in this court.

6. Order V, C. P. C. deals with service of summons. Rule 2 of this Order says that "Every summons shall be accompanied by a copy of the plaint or, if so permitted, by a concise statement*. Rule 10 says that "Service of the summons shall be made by delivering or tendering a copy thereof signed by the Judge or such officer as he appoints in this behalf, and sealed with the seal of the Court".

7. It is not in dispute that summons served under Rule 10 must be accompanied by a copy of the plaint or else, if permitted by the court, by a concise statement. The law is settled that if a copy of the plaint is not served on the defendant, who is served under Rule 10, the service cannot be said to be in accordance with law.

8. Rule 17 of Order V, inter alia, provides for affixation of 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. The rule contemplates service of summons by affixation, amongst others, for the reason that the defendant refused to accept summons tendered to him by