The provisions of Rule 19 of Order 5, C.P.C. are mandatory and require the court to make a judicial order accepting service effected in the manner prescribed under Rule 17 of Order 5, C.P.C. Failure to comply with this requirement results in a violation of the principles of natural justice.

( 1 ) INJUSTICE is not law. Justice is law. Shri K. N. Gupta, submits that the Court will not go door to door to deliver justice. But I told him, litigants coming to Court must not see the doors of the Court shut and no Court shall shut its door to the litigants.

( 2 ) IT is another unfortunate case whose number is running into legion. After 12 years this matter has seen the light of the day though it had to be disposed of only by a very short order as a single and simple point of law merely is involved in the case. This appeal is against an order passed by the lower Appellate Court refusing to restore the appeal for rehearing after setting aside ex parte decree passed against the respondents.

( 3 ) SHRI Dubey has made a very short submission founded on violation of Rule 19 of Order 5, C. P. C. and I have no doubt that the contention of learned counsel for the appellant must prevail despite the forceful arguments of Shri Gupta, who appears for the respondents in this case. Shri Dubey has drawn my attention to the lower appellate Court's order dated 19-11-1971 to submit that the appeal could not have heard ex parte without compliance of the provisions of Rule 19, Order 5, C. P. C. and the fact that there was non-compliance of the said provision is writ large on the face of the order. The crucial fact which is not disputed on either side is that the respondents in the Court below were not served personally. Shri Gupta has indeed contended that the service was rather "duly effected" in the manner prescribed by R. 17 of O. 5, C. P. C. But the moot point is, whether such a service ipso facto becomes effective or there has to be a judicial order accepting the service under R. 19, O. 5 C. P. C. I quote in extenso appellate Court's order dated 19-11-1971 to appreciate rival contentions :

( 4 ) SHRI Gupta lays stress on the word to submit that there was due compliance with the provisions of R. 19 of O. 5 C. P. C. , which contention I find very difficult to accept though repeated and hammered times without number by Shri. Gupta. The only reasonable interpretation of the term, according to me, would be "despite service", and by no stretch of imagination it can be said that service was accepted by the Court under R. 19 aforesaid by directing its attention to the facts and circumstances of the case namely the fact that the service was effected in the substituted manner under R. 17, O. 5, C. P. C. Shri Gupta laboured hard and did his best to convince me that I must look at Exhibits D-1 and D-2 which are summons and the report of the process server. I refused to oblige him for valid reasons which I must disclose at once in this order. Admittedly, these two documents were proved later, in the course of the inquiry concluded subsequently, on the application filed by the respondents for restoration. The order afore-extracted does not manifest on its face that Court had at any time directed its attention to these documents which it was its duty to do to comply with the mandate of R. 19 aforesaid, which also I feel tempted to extract-"o. 5, R. 19 - Examination of serving officer.- where a summons is returned under Rule 17, the Court shall, if the return under that rule has not been verified by the affidavit of the serving officer, and may, if it has been so verified, examine the serving officer on oath, or cause him to be so examined by another Court, touching his proceedings, and may make such further enquiry, in the matter as it thanks fit; and shall either declare that the summons has been duly served or order such service as it thinks fit. "

( 5 ) I have no hesitation to take the view that the provisions of R. 19 aforequoted are mandatory in real sense of the term and that it casts a duty on the Court to make a judicial order while accepting service effected in the manner prescribed under Rule 17 of O. 5, C. P. C. I say so because the legislature requires the Court that it "shall either declare that the summons has been duly serv