REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2113  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 14648 of 2017)

Auto Cars             ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Trimurti Cargo Movers Pvt.  Ltd. & Ors.           ….Respondent(s)    

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is filed against the final judgment

and  order  dated  24.04.2017  passed  by  the  High

Court at Calcutta in A.P.O. No.200 of 2017 in C.S.

1

No.15/14 whereby the Division Bench of the High

Court  dismissed the appeal  filed by the appellant

herein  and  affirmed  the  order  dated  18.08.2016

passed by the Single Judge of the High Court in GA

No.766 of  2016,  in consequence,  affirmed the  ex-

parte decree  dated  09.02.2015  in  C.S.  No.15  of

2014.

3) The controversy involved in the appeal lies in a

narrow compass. However, few facts need mention

infra to appreciate the controversy.

4) The  appellant  is  defendant  No.1  whereas

respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and respondent Nos.

2 and 3 are defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the civil suit

out of which this appeal arises.

5) The plaintiff (respondent No.1) filed a civil suit

being  C.S.  No  15  of  2014  in  the  High  Court  at

Calcutta on its original side against the defendants

(appellant and respondent Nos.2 and 3)  for recovery

2

of Rs.1,43,18,537/- on 13.01.2014.   The suit was

based  on  some  commercial  dealings  exchanged

between  the  parties  in  relation  to  services  and

supply of goods etc.  

6) It is, however, not necessary for the disposal of

this appeal to refer in detail the facts on which the

suit was founded to claim the amount in question

from the defendants.

7) The summons of the suit was initially sent to

the defendants at their place of business mentioned

in the cause title of the plaint, which was shown at

Aurangabad (MH).  Since  the  defendants  were  not

being served with the ordinary mode of service, the

plaintiff sought permission to serve them with the

substituted  service  by  way  of  publication  under

Order  V  Rule  20  of  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure,

1908  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  "the  Code").  The

permission was granted to the plaintiff.

3

8) The  summons  dated  17.11.2014  was

accordingly published in the Times of India (Pune

Edition)  and  Dainik  Bhaskar(Aurangabad  Edition)

on 25.11.2014. The summons, which was published

in papers, reads as under:  

“Advertisement

The Times of India, Tuesday, Nov. 25, 2014 C.S. No.15 of 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction

Original Side

M/s.  Trimurti  Cargo  Movers  Pvt.  Ltd.  a company incorporated under the Companies Act,  1956  having  its  registered  office  at 157-C,  Lelin  Sarani,  Kolkata-700013,  Police Station  Tal  Totlla  within  the  aforesaid jurisdiction and branch office at 305, Shivam Chamber,  S.V.  Road,  Goregaon, Mumbai-400062.   

…..Plaintiff

Versus

1. M/s Auto Cars, a registered partnership firm having  its  office  at  Adalat  Road, Aurangabad-4310001  outside  the  aforesaid jurisdiction and branch office at 39-A, Harish Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700025.

4

2. Mr.  Venugopal  Dhoot,  Partner  of  M/s.  Auto Cars  of  Adalat  Road,  Aurangabad-4310001 outside the aforesaid jurisdiction.

 ……Defendants To,

1. Mr.  Venugopal  Dhoot,  Partner  of  M/s.  Auto Cars of Adalat Road, Aurangabad-4310001.

2. Mr. Raj Kumar Dhoot, Partner of M/s. Auto Cars of Adalat Road, Aurangabad-4310001

Dear Sir,

Notices hereby given under Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 that the plaintiff above named had filed a suit against you  before  this  Hon’ble  High  Court  at Calcutta  on  or  about  13.01.2014  inter  alia praying  for  leave  under  Clause  12  of  the Letters Patent, 1865 and claims and reliefs:

(a) A  decree  of  Rs.1,63,34,537/-  against  the defendant as pleaded in paragraph 14 above;

(b) Interest at the rate of Rs.25% per annum; (c) Interim interest and interest upon judgment

on  the  aforesaid  decreetal  amount  until realization;

(d) Receiver; (e) Injunction; (f) Attachment; (g) Costs; (h) Such further or other relief(s)

You  are  hereby  required  to  cause  an appearance to be entered for you in the office of the Registrar of this Court within 15 days from  the  service  upon  you  by  way  of publication of this summons, exclusive of the day  of  such  service  and  are  summoned  to appear before this Court in person or by an

5

advocate of the court to answer the plaintiffs’ claim on the  day the  case  is  set  down for hearing,  upon  which  date  you  must  be prepared  to  produce  all  your  witnesses  or power  upon  which  you  intend  to  rely  in support of your case.

You are hereby required to take notice that in default of your causing an appearance to the so entered the suit  will  be liable to be heard and determent in your absence.

Witness:  Mrs.  Manjula  Chellur,  The  Chief Justice, At Calcutta aforesaid the 13th day of November, 2014.

Arka Kumar Ghosh Master 17/11/14

(Santosh Kumar Ray) Plaintiffs’ Advocate on Record 6 Kiran Shankar Roy Road 2nd Floor, Room No.707, Kolkata-700001

9) The defendants did not appear in the case, as

directed  in  the  summons,  therefore,  the  Court

placed  the  defendants  ex-parte and  proceeded  to

decide  the  suit  on  merits  in  their  absence  and

eventually on 09.02.2015 passed an ex-parte decree

against  the  defendants  for  a  sum  of

6

Rs.1,43,18,537/-  together  with  simple  interest  @

12% p.a. from 01.05.2013 till the date of payment.  

10) On coming to know of  passing of  the decree

against  them,  the  defendants  filed  an  application

under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code on 08.03.2016

before the Court (GA No. 766/2016) praying therein

for setting aside the ex-parte decree inter alia on the

ground that the summons of the suit was not duly

served on them, therefore, they had no knowledge of

filing of the suit by the plaintiff against them. The

defendants  also  contended  that  their  place  of

business is at Aurangabad whereas the summons in

question  was  published  in  the  daily  newspaper,

Times of India at Pune. The defendants, therefore,

contended that due to this reason a case for setting

aside of the ex-parte decree, as contemplated under

Order  IX  Rule  13  of  the  Code,  is  made  out  and

hence the ex-parte decree dated 09.02.2015 passed

7

in  Civil  Suit  No.15/2014  be  set  aside  and  the

defendants  be  permitted  to  contest  the  suit  on

merits.

11) The plaintiff filed their reply and contested the

application filed by the defendants. According to the

plaintiff, there was no illegality or irregularity in the

service  of  the  summons  on  the  defendants  and

since  despite  service  of  the  summons  made

pursuant to the publication in the newspapers, the

defendants failed to appear  in  the suit,  therefore,

they were not entitled to seek any indulgence nor

entitled  to  seek setting aside  of  the  decree under

Order IX Rule 13 of the Code.  

12) The  Single  Judge,  by  judgment  dated

18.08.2016, dismissed the application filed by the

defendants  holding  that  the  summons  were  duly

served on them. The defendants felt aggrieved and

filed appeal before the Division Bench of the High

8

Court. By impugned judgment, the Division Bench

dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of

the Single Judge.  

13) The  appellant  (defendant  No.1)  felt  aggrieved

by the judgment of the Division Bench and filed the

present appeal by way of special leave before this

Court.

14) Heard  Mr.  Shekhar  Naphade,  learned  senior

counsel,  for  the  appellant,  Mr.  S.  Chakraborty,

learned  counsel  for  respondent  No.1  and  Mr.

Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, learned counsel for

respondent Nos.2 & 3.

15) Having  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

are inclined to allow the appeal and while setting

aside the impugned judgment allow the application

filed by the defendants under Order IX Rule 13 of

the  Code  and,  in  consequence,  set  aside  the  ex

9

parte decree  09.02.2015  passed  in  Civil  Suit  No.

15/2014 and restore the suit  on its  file  for being

tried on merits in accordance with law.

16) In our considered view, the issue involved in

the appeal  is  required to be examined keeping in

view Section 27, Appendix-B appended to the Code

read with Order V Rule 20(3) and Order IX Rule 13

of the Code.

17) Section 27 of the Code deals with issuance of

the summons to defendants. It  says that where a

suit has been instituted,  summons may be issued

to the defendant to appear and answer the claim

and may be  served in  the  "manner  prescribed on

such day" not beyond thirty days from the date of

the institution of the suit.

18) The format of the summons, which is used for

effecting service on the defendant, is prescribed in

Appendix-B,  Process  No.I.   So  far  as  Calcutta  is

10

concerned, the State has amended the format of the

summons  as  Process  No.IA.  These  formats  are

appended to the Code and read as under:  

“APPENDIX B PROCESS

No.1 SUMMONS FOR DISPOSAL OF SUIT (O.V, r. 1

and r.5) (Title)

To …………………………………………..  [Name,

description and place of residence.]

Whereas………………………………………… …has  instituted  a  suit  against  you  for ……………………………………… you  are  hereby summoned to appear in this Court in person or by a pleader duly instructed (and able to answer all material questions relating to the suit,  or  who shall  be accompanied by some person, able to answer all such questions, on the  ………  day  of  ……..  19…/20…..,  at …….O’clock in the …… noon, to answer the claim;  and  as  the  day  fixed,  for  your appearance is appointed for the final disposal of the suit, you must be prepared to produce on  that  day  all  the  witnesses  upon  whose evidence and all the documents upon which you intend to rely in support of your defence.

Take  notice  that,  in  default  of  your appearance on the day before mentioned, the

11

suit  will  be  heard  and  determined  in  your absence.  

Given under my hand and the seal  of the Court, that ……. Day of….. 19…./20…..

Judge.

Notice-1.  Should  you  apprehend  your witnesses will not attend of their own accord, you can have a summons from this Court to compel  the attendance of  any witness,  and the  production  of  any  document  that  you have  a  right  to  call  upon  the  witness  to produce,  on  applying  to  the  Court  and  on depositing the necessary expenses.  

2.  If  you admit the claim, you should pay the money into Court together with the costs  of  the  suit,to  avoid  execution  of  the decree, which may be against your person or property, or both.”  

“Calcutta-  After  Form  No.1,  insert  the following Form, namely:-

“No. 1A SUMMONS TO DEFENDANT FOR

ASCERTAINMENT WHETHER THE SUIT WILL BE CONTESTED

(O.V, rr. 1 and 5) (Title)

To …………………………………………..  [Name,

description and place of residence.]

WHEREAS  ……………………….  has instituted suit  against  you for  …… you are hereby summoned to appear in this Court in person or by a pleader duly instructed, and able to answer all material questions relating the  suit  on  the  day  of  ……  19…/20….,  at O’clock in the ……..  noon in  order  that  on

12

that day you may inform the Court whether you will or will not contest the claim either in whole or in part and in order that in the event of your deciding to contest the claim either in whole or in part, directions may be given to you as to the date upon which your written  statement  is  to  be  filed  and  the witness  or  witnesses  upon  whose  evidence you intend to rely in support of your defence are to be produced and also the document or documents upon which you intend to relay.  

Take  notice  that,  in  default  of  your appearance on the day before mentioned the suit  will  be  heard  and  determined  in  your absence and take further notice that in the event of your admitting the claim either in whole or in part the Court will forthwith pass judgment  in  accordance  with  such admissions.  

Given under my hand and the seal  of the Court this day of …… 19……/20…… .  

Judge.

Notice- If you admit the claim either in whole or in part you should come prepared to pay into Court the money due by virtue of such admission together with the costs of the suit to avoid  execution of any decree which may  be  passed  against  your  person  or property, or both.” (w.e.f. 25-8-1927)”

19) The aforementioned format of  Process No.I  is

uniformly  prescribed  for  effecting  service  of

summons which are issued under Order V Rules 1

and 5 of the Code. It is, however, noticed that so far

13

as  State  of  UP  (Allahabad)  is  concerned,  it  has

prescribed  a  special  format  of  the  summons  for

service under Order V Rule 20 whereas so far  as

Calcutta  is  concerned,  it  has  not  specifically

prescribed any special  format  for  effecting  service

under Order V Rule 20 of the Code on the defendant

but  has  prescribed  a  special  format  for  effecting

service under Order V Rules 1 and 5 of the Code.

20) Since  no  specific  format  is  prescribed  for

effecting  service  of  the  summons  under  Order  V

Rule 20 of the Code by Calcutta except prescribing

a special format for effecting service under Order V

Rules 1 and 5 of the Code, the format prescribed for

service of summons under Order V Rules I and 5 of

the Code is also used for issuance of summons for

effecting service under Order V Rule 20 of the Code.

21) In  the  format  prescribed  in  the  Appendix-B

Process  No.I  or  No.IA  (which  is  applicable  to  the

14

case at hand because the suit in question originates

from  Calcutta),  we  find  that  there  is  a  specific

column in the summons where  a “day, date, year

and time” for defendant's appearance is required to

be mentioned.

22) In  other  words,  the  legislature  while

prescribing the format of summons in the Code has

provided one column where the Court is required to

mention a specific “day, date, year and time” for the

defendant's appearance in the Court to enable him

to answer the suit filed against him/her. This  is

also the requirement prescribed under Section 27 of

the  Code  as  is  clear  from  the  words  occurring

therein  “and  may  be  served  in  the  manner

prescribed on such day”.

23) Order  V  Rule  20(3)  provides  that  when  the

service  is  effected  by  way  of  publication  by  the

orders of the Court, the Court has to fix   "time" for

15

the appearance of the defendant, as the case may

require. In our opinion, this does not dispense with

the requirement of mentioning the actual day, date,

year  and  time  for  defendant's  appearance  in  the

Court because it is prescribed in format.  

24) The  expression  “time”  has  to  be  read

harmoniously  and  in  juxtaposition  with  the

requirement prescribed under Section 27 read with

statutory format Process IA of Appendix-B appended

to the Code.

25) Indeed, mentioning of the specific “day, date,

year  and  time”  in  the  summons  is  a  statutory

requirement prescribed in law (Code) and, therefore,

it  cannot be said to be an empty formality.   It  is

essentially  meant  and  for  the  benefit  of  the

defendant because it enables the defendant to know

the exact date, time and the place to appear in the

16

particular Court in answer to the suit filed by the

plaintiff against him.  

26) If the specific day, date, year and the time for

defendant's  appearance in the Court concerned is

not  mentioned  in  the  summons  though  validly

served  on  the  defendant  by  any  mode  of  service

prescribed under Order V, it will not be possible for

him/her to attend the Court for want of any fixed

date given for his/her appearance.

27) The  object  behind  sending  the  summons  is

essentially  threefold-  First,  it  is  to  apprise  the

defendant about the filing of a case by the plaintiff

against  him;  Second,  to  serve  the  defendant  with

the copy of the plaint filed against him; and Third,

to  inform  the  defendant  about  actual  day,  date,

year,  time and the particular  Court so that  he is

able  to appear in the Court on the date  fixed for

17

his/her appearance in the said case and answer the

suit either personally or through his lawyer.  

28) Now coming to the facts of the case, we find

that  the  summons  dated  17.11.2014,  which  was

sought  to  be  served  on  the  defendants  by

publication published on 25.11.2014 in the Times

of  India and Dainik Bhaskar did not comply with

the requirement of Section 27 read with Appendix-B

(process) No.I and IA.  

29) In  other  words,  the  summons  dated

17.11.2004 published in the papers (Times of India

and Dainik Bhaskar) had material infirmity therein,

which rendered  the  summons so  also  the  service

made on the defendants bad in law.

30) The  material  infirmity  in  the  summons  was

that it did not mention any specific day, date, year

and  time  for  the  defendants’  appearance  in  the

Court.  This  being  the  requirement  of  Section  27

18

read  with  Order  V  Rule  20(3)  and  Process-IA  of

Appendix-B,  it  was  mandatory  for  the  Court  to

mention  the  specific  working  day,  date,  year  and

time in the columns meant for such filling.  It would

have enabled the defendants to appear before the

Court on the date so fixed therein.  It is a settled

rule  of  interpretation  that  when  the  legislature

provides  a  particular  thing  to  be  done  in  a

particular manner then such thing has to be done

in  the  same  prescribed  manner  and  in  no  other

manner.

31) What  was,  however,  mentioned  in  the

summons  in  question  was  that  the  defendants

should  appear  before  the  Registrar  of  the  Court

within  15 days  from the  service  of  publication of

this summons on them exclusive of the day of such

service  of  the  summons  and  are  summoned  to

appear  before  this  Court  in  person  or  through

19

advocate to answer the plaintiff's claim on the day

the case is set down for hearing upon which date

you(defendants)  must  be  prepared  to  produce  all

your  witness  and  all  your  documents  in  your

possession or power upon which you intend to rely

in support  of  your case.  The summons then also

mentioned  that  you  (defendants)  are  hereby

required  to  take  notice  that  in  default  of  your

causing an appearance to be so entered,  the suit

will  be liable to be heard and determined in your

absence.

32) The aforesaid wording in the summons insofar

as  it  pertains  to  giving  15  days’  time  without

mentioning a specific day, date, year and time is not

in conformity with the requirements of Section 27

read with Appendix B.

33) In  the  light  of  the  foregoing  discussions,

service  of  summons  on  the  defendants  without

20

mentioning  therein  a  specific  day,  date,  year  and

time cannot be held as  “summons duly served” on

the defendants within the meaning of Order IX Rule

13 of the Code. In other words, such summons and

the service effected pursuant thereto cannot be held

to be in conformity with Section 27 read with the

statutory format prescribed in Appendix B Process (I

and IA) and Order 5 Rule 20(3) of the Code.

34) It is for this reason, we are of the considered

opinion that the appellant (defendant No.1) was able

to make out a ground contemplated under Order IX

Rule 13 of the Code for setting aside the  ex parte

decree.  

35) Once the appellant (defendant No.1) is able to

show that “summons were not duly served on him"

as prescribed under Section 27 read with Appendix

B Process IA and Order V Rule 20(3) of the Code

then it is one of the grounds for setting aside the ex

21

parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code.  In

our view, the appellant (defendant No.1) is able to

make out the ground.  

36) In view of  the foregoing  discussion,  we need

not consider any other ground though raised by the

appellant(defendant No.1)  in support  of  their  case

because the aforesaid ground which we have dealt

with  though  not  raised  by  the  appellant  in  the

Courts below but being a pure question of law and

going  to  the  root  of  the  matter  affecting  the  very

jurisdiction  of  the  Court  could  be  allowed  to  be

raised in this Court for doing substantial justice.

37) Before  parting,  we  consider  it  apposite  to

remind  ourselves  with  the  apt  observations  of  a

learned Judge - Vivian Bose, J., which His Lordship

made while dealing with the scope of Order IX in a

leading  case  of  Sangram  Singh  vs.  Election

Tribunal (AIR 1955 SC 425).

22

38) The learned Judge speaking for the Bench in

his distinctive style of writing reminded the Courts

to  keep  the  following  observations  in  mind  while

deciding  the  rights  of  the  parties  which reads  as

under:

“A  code  of  procedure  must  be  regarded  as such. It is procedure something designed to facilitate justice and further its ends: not a penal  enactment  for  punishment  and penalties; not a thing designed to trip people up. Too technical a construction of sections that leaves no room for reasonable elasticity of interpretation should therefore be guarded against (provided always that justice is done to both sides) lest the very means designed for  the  furtherance  of  justice  be  used  to frustrate  it.  Our  laws  of  procedure  are grounded  on  a  principle  of  natural  justice which  requires  that  men  should  not  be condemned  unheard,  that  decisions  should not  be  reached  behind  their  backs,  that proceedings  that  affect  their  lives  and property  should  not  continue  in  their absence  and  that  they  should  not  be precluded  from  participating  in  them.  Of course, there must be exceptions and where they are clearly defined they must be given effect to. But taken by and large, and subject to that proviso, our laws of procedure should be  construed,  wherever  that  is  reasonably possible, in the light of that principle.”  

23

39) In  the  light  of  the  foregoing  discussion,  the

appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgments of

the Single Judge and Division Bench are set aside.

The  appellant's  (defendant  No.1)  application  filed

under  Order  IX  Rule  13  of  the  Code  (GA  No.

766/2016)  is  allowed.  As  a  consequence,  the  ex

parte decree dated 09.02.2015 passed in C.S. No.

15/2014 is set aside. The civil suit is restored to its

original file.  

40) Parties to appear before the concerned Court

on  05.03.2018  to  enable  the  Court  to  decide  the

suit. The appellant (defendant No.1) will be granted

an  opportunity  to  file  the  written  statement.  The

Court will ensure disposal of the suit on merits in

accordance with law within a year as an outer limit.

41) It  was,  however,  brought  to  our  notice  that

during the pendency of  this  appeal,  the appellant

was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.47.50 lakhs which

24

they have deposited.  Now that the suit is restored

to its original file for its decision on merits, we make

it clear that the deposit and withdrawal of Rs.47.50

lakhs would be subject to the final result of the suit.

  ………...................................J. [R.K. AGRAWAL]

                                  …...……..................................J.             [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

New Delhi; February 15, 2018  

25