Proper service of summons is essential, and a party's knowledge of a suit is not sufficient without effective service of summons. A valid summons must meet legal requirements, including the Judge's signature and seal.

Judgement

Ray, C. J. :- This appeal is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Cuttack refusing to set aside an ex parte decree. The suit was a Money Suit by the res p. against more than four defts. of whom deft. 2 is the applt. before us. Deft. 1 is the elder brother and is stated to be the Manager of the joint family of defts. 1, 2 and 3. Deft. 4 is a Muhammadan gentleman who was impleaded on the ground that he was one of the patnrs of the partnership business in relation whereto the liability in favour of the pltf. is said to have arisen. Defta 5 and 6 were some of the servants of the partnership concern. The suit was contested by deft. 4 and he was released from the liability on the finding that he was not a patnr. of the concern. Deft 1, while residing at Puri. the place where he ordinarily resides now-a-days away from the family house at Cuttack, was personally served with summons which he acknowledged. Deft. 3 is the son of deft. 1. The two defts. (defts. 2 and 3) could not be personally served with the regular summonses accompanied with copies of plaint addressed to them. The report of the Serving Officer was that the copies of summonses had been tendered to them; but they having understood the purport thereof refused to acknowledge and thereupon they were hung at the sadr door of their residence. I could not quite understand how could deft. 3s ordinary residence be at Cuttack when his father deft. 1 was ordinary residing at Puri. Deft. 3 was admittedly at the time a student of Jadavpur Engineering College. Under the circumstances, as is expected, the learned Subordinate Judge did not accept the report as to the mode of service of the serving Officer and declared the same to be unsatisfactory calling upon the pltf. to take further steps for fresh service. The fresh service that was ordered by the Ct. was a registered Post Card. This Post Card is said to have been tendered to the applt. before us and refused. Thereafter, the suit was set down ex parte against defts. 1, 2 and 3. The suit travelled through a long course on account of contest by deft. 4 and was finally disposed of about a year after. The decree was ex parte as against defts. 1, 2 and 3 and one of dismissal as against defts 4, 5 and 6. The defts. 1, 2 and 3 by separate applns. filed, sought to have the ex parte decree set aside under O. 9, R. 13 which met with refusal by the Sub. ordinate Judge. Hence this appeal by the deft. 2.

2. The learned Subordinate Judge, after considering the evidence of the Postal Peon (witness 2 for the opp. party), has come to the finding that the post card was tendered personally to Narendra Kishore Das. I have gone through the evidence of this witness and there is much to be said against his testimony. He is a peon under suspension regarding delivery of an Insured Parcel for about nine months by the time when he deposed. The point, however, that has to be considered in this appeal is whether the post card, in question, is an effectual substitute for the regular service of summons. O. 5, R. 17 lays down the various alternatives that have to be adopted for effecting personal or other service of summons accompanied with copy of plaint on a deft. the validity of which depends upon the Cts. pronouncement of its genuineness and credibility. As I have said in this case, the Ct. pronounced the Serving Officers report as unsatisfactory. Then comes R. 20 of the Order into operation which provides:

"Where the Ct. is satisfied that there is reason to believe that the deft. is keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service, or that for any other reason the summons cannot be served in the ordinary way, the Ct. shall order the summons to be served by affixing a copy thereof in some conspicuous place in the Court-house and also upon some conspicuous part of the house (if any) in which the deft. is known to have last resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain, or in such other manner as the Ct. thinks fi