IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the mandatory procedures for service of summons under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the insufficiency of substituted service through publication in the newspapers.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, is the plaintiff in Original (Money) Suit No.3 of 2018 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bishnupur. She filed the said suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.20 lakh, based on a promissory note. The defendant in the suit was set ex parte by the Trial Court, vide order dated 21.08.2018. Thereupon, the defendant filed Judicial Miscellaneous Case No.8 of 2019 praying that the order dated 21.08.2018, setting him ex parte, be set aside and to allow him to file his written statement. By order dated 20.02.2019, the Trial Court accepted the defendant's first plea on payment of costs of Rs.300/- and relegated him to the stage of the suit as on 21.08.2018. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed this revision.

2. By Order dated 26.04.2019, this Court stayed the suit proceedings. The stay was extended until further orders on 10.05.2019.

3. Heard Mr. T.Rajendra, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and Mr. S.Devajit, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant.

4. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Trial Court.

5. The case put forth by the defendant in Judicial Miscellaneous Case No.8 of 2018 was that he had no knowledge of the suit till 05.01.2019, when he was informed by one Khomdram Umakanta Singh of Laitonjam Mayai Leikai that he had received summons to appear as a witness before the Trial Court on 08.01.2019 in connection with the suit. According to the defendant, Umakanta Singh informed him that the suit related to a promissory note said to have been executed in favour of the plaintiff by the defendant, wherein he figured as an attesting witness. Umakanta Singh is stated to have said that he had no knowledge of the promissory note and requested the defendant to come with him to the Trial Court. The defendant then stated that, on 10.01.2019, he along with his counsel went to the Trial Court and came to know of the suit. He stated that his enquiry revealed that 12.06.2018' was the date fixed by the Trial Court for appearance of the defendant, but no summons had been returned served on 12.06.2018, as per the Trial Court's records. He further found that a report was submitted by the Process Server on 12.07.2018, stating that the summonee could not be found at his residence and the family members refused to sign and receive the same, and on the strength of the said report, the Trial Court passed order 07.08.2018 permitting publication of the summons in a local daily on two consecutive days, returnable by 21.08.2018. The records showed that copies of the daily 'Naharolgi Thoudang' dated 10.08.2018 and 12.08.2018 were furnished to the Court in proof of such publication having been carried out and, on that basis, the Trial Court passed order dated 21.08.2018 to proceed ex parte against the defendant.

6. The defendant stated that the records also revealed that points of determination were framed by the Trial Court; that examination of PWs. 1, 2 and 3 was completed and the matter was adjourned to 11.12.2018 for further PW evidence. Having stated so, the defendant asserted that no summons were served upon him or his family members in connection with the suit. He complained that no enquiry was made by the Trial Court by examining the Process Server, who had fabricated his report in collusion with the plaintiff, and he again said that he came to know of the suit only on 05.01.2019. On these grounds, he prayed for setting aside of the order dated 21.08.2018, whereby he was set ex parte in the suit.

7. Opposing the miscellaneous case, the plaintiff filed written objections. Therein, she stated that it was not possible for Umakanta Singh to know that the suit related to a promissory note upon just receiving summons from the Trial Court, if he had no knowledge and was not an attesting witness to the promissory note. She also denied the claim of the defendant that he had no knowledge of the suit despi