-
by Admin
28 January 2026 4:28 AM
“Affixation Without Court Direction Is No Service At All”, In a significant ruling protecting the procedural rights of defendants, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that ex parte proceedings initiated solely on the basis of an unauthorised affixation of summons are unsustainable in law. Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, set aside the impugned order dated 28.11.2025 and directed that the petitioner-Anmol Singh be permitted to file a written statement.
The Court found that the trial court had allowed the defendant to “join the proceedings” under Order IX Rule 7 CPC, but failed to grant him the right to file a written statement. Calling this an “illusory and ineffective” permission, the High Court held such conduct by the trial court as patently illegal, warranting correction under Article 227.
“Court Cannot Adopt Shortcut Methods for Service of Summons”: High Court Criticises Ex Parte Proceedings Based Solely on Affixation
The case arose out of civil suit proceedings where Anmol Singh, defendant No. 2, was proceeded against ex parte by the trial court based on a process server’s report of affixation under Order V Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, the affixation was neither preceded by a proper attempt at personal service nor done under the directions of the court, and notably, was not witnessed by any independent or respectable person.
The High Court was categorical in holding that: “There was no direction from the Court that in case defendant No.2/petitioner is not found present at his house, the summons should be affixed at his house.”
The process server’s report itself mentioned that the Chowkidar was absent and no family member accepted the summons. Affixation, done without these procedural safeguards and without any attesting witnesses, was found to be invalid. The Court clarified that:
“Efforts should have been made either to get the petitioner served in person or notice should have been sent through registered post but no such course was adopted… A shortcut method was adopted whereby defendant No.2/petitioner was proceeded ex parte.”
Ex Parte Order Set Aside – Defendant Must Be Allowed to File Written Statement
After being improperly proceeded ex parte, Anmol Singh filed an application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC, which the trial court partially allowed — permitting him to join proceedings, but denying him the opportunity to file a written statement. The High Court found this partial relief meaningless, stating:
“Simplicitor permission to join the proceedings is not sufficient, as he will not be able to lead evidence without filing the written statement.”
The Court concluded that the impugned order was not only procedurally defective but also unjust:
“Once defendant No.2/petitioner moved an application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings and since he had not been properly served, he should have been given an opportunity to file the written statement.”
The plea that the suit had been pending for over four years was dismissed as immaterial, with the Court observing that delay could not justify denial of procedural fairness:
“Delay cannot override the requirement of proper service and meaningful right to defence.”
Supervisory Jurisdiction Under Article 227 Invoked to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice
Highlighting its supervisory role, the High Court reiterated that Article 227 empowers it to interfere in cases of procedural irregularity causing grave prejudice. The Court found the trial court’s refusal to permit the filing of a written statement as “perverse and illegal,” and accordingly:
Allowed CR-9444-2025 filed by Anmol Singh, setting aside the impugned order dated 28.11.2025;
Dismissed CR-399-2026 filed by the plaintiff, who had challenged the setting aside of ex parte proceedings altogether.
A copy of the judgment was also directed to be placed on the connected file.
Date of Decision: January 20, 2026
