Trial Courts Obligated To Consider Applications For Service Of Summons Via Email If High Court Circulars Are Complied With: Karnataka High Court

"When an I.A, is filed under Order 5 r/w Section 151 of CPC, to issue suit summons to the defendant by way of email and also having complied with all the formalities as laid down by the High Court in its circular dated 17.02.2025, the trial Court ought to have considered the same." High Court of Karnataka, in a significant ruling dated July 13, 2026, held that trial courts are duty-bound to consider applications for the service of summons via email when petitioners demonstrate compliance with prescribed High Court circulars.

A single-judge bench of Justice Lalitha Kanneganti observed that the trial courts must appreciate contentions regarding the defendant’s awareness of proceedings and refusal to accept notice when deciding such procedural applications.

The petitioner, Exergic Education Pvt. Ltd., filed a civil suit (O.S. No. 3092/2024) in 2024 where notice could not be served on the respondent through conventional means. Consequently, the petitioner filed an interlocutory application under Order V Rule 20 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking permission to issue summons via email. The XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, refused this request on August 1, 2025, leading the petitioner to approach the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The primary question before the court was whether the trial court was justified in refusing to permit the service of summons via email despite the petitioner’s claimed compliance with High Court circulars. The court was also called upon to determine whether the trial court failed to exercise its jurisdiction by ignoring evidence of the defendant’s awareness of the proceedings.

Trial Court Refused Service Via Email Despite Compliance Efforts

The petitioner contended before the High Court that the trial court's refusal was contrary to several circulars issued by the High Court from time to time regarding digital service of process. It was submitted that the petitioner had filed a supporting affidavit and documents demonstrating that the respondent was aware of the proceedings. Specifically, the petitioner showed that the respondent had replied to an email sent after an interim injunction was granted, indicating a "wantedly" refusal to receive formal notice.

Court Highlights Mandatory Compliance With High Court Circulars

Justice Lalitha Kanneganti noted that the petitioner had followed the formalities laid down in the High Court circular dated February 17, 2025. The Court observed that when such compliance is evident, the trial court must give due consideration to the application rather than dismissing it without appreciating the contentions. The bench found that the impugned order revealed a failure on the part of the trial court to address the specific grounds raised by the petitioner for seeking email service.

"The trial Court ought to have considered the same. But, the order impugned reveals that the trial Court has failed to appreciate any of the contentions."

Guidance From Co-ordinate Bench On Interim Orders And Notice

The Court relied upon a decision by a Co-ordinate Bench in Dhalitha Vividha Gramodyoga Kaigarika Sahakara Sanga Niyamitha (R) Vs Samatha Sainika Dal SSD (2025). That ruling emphasized that when applications for temporary injunction are filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, the trial court has an obligation to pass suitable orders. It was noted that it is not optional for the trial court to merely issue notice without considering the necessity of an interim order.

Duty Of Trial Courts In Handling Injunction Applications

Referencing Karnataka State Cricket Association vs. Mr. Shashidhara A.V., the Court reiterated that guidelines exist for how trial courts must deal with applications for ex-parte ad interim injunctions. The bench noted that the trial court must consider Apex Court precedents, including Shiv Kumar Chadha vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (1993) and Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow vs. State of U.P. (2025), while deciding such matters.

"It is not optional for the trial Court to merely issue notice to the defendant before passing an interim order of temporary injunction against the defendant."

Final Directions To The Trial Court

The High Court found that the trial court had failed to exercise its discretion properly in light of the circular dated December 17, 2025, which further clarified the procedure for digital service. Consequently, the High Court set aside the order dated August 1, 2025, passed by the XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge. The trial court was directed to reconsider the application for email service and pass appropriate orders within one week.

The Karnataka High Court concluded that the trial court must facilitate the service of summons through modern digital means like email, provided the procedural safeguards in the High Court circulars are met. By allowing the petition, the Court reinforced that procedural technicalities should not hinder the progression of a suit, especially when a defendant appears to be evading service despite having knowledge of the litigation.

Date of Decision: 13 July 2026