Service of Summons — Modes and Practice Directions

A summons is the formal command by which a civil court draws a defendant into the lis and fixes the date on which the claim must be answered. Because an ex parte decree turns entirely on whether the defendant was lawfully called, the modes and mechanics of service are among the most litigated procedural questions in trial practice. Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with the State Civil Rules of Practice and a series of Supreme Court directions, supplies a graded scheme — ordinary personal service, service by registered post or courier, service by the plaintiff, electronic service, and, as a last resort, substituted service. This chapter maps each mode, the proof it requires, and the practice directions that have reshaped the field since the 1999 and 2002 amendments. Read it alongside the filing of plaints chapter, because the summons issues only once the plaint is duly instituted.

What a Summons Is, and Why Service Governs the Whole Suit

Section 27 of the Code provides that where a suit has been duly instituted, a summons may be issued to the defendant to appear and answer the claim, and to be served in the manner prescribed. Order V Rule 1(1) reinforces this and, after the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999, requires the summons to call upon the defendant to file the written statement within thirty days, extendable by the court for reasons recorded up to ninety days. The summons is therefore not a mere courtesy notice; it is the jurisdictional bridge that converts an instituted plaint into a contested cause.

The reason service is so jealously guarded is the audi alteram partem principle. A decree passed against a defendant who was never lawfully called offends natural justice and is liable to be set aside under Order IX Rule 13. The Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344, recognised that defective and delayed service of summons had become one of the principal causes of docket delay, and it read the amended Order V as a deliberate legislative attempt to cure that mischief while preserving the defendant's right to a genuine opportunity to be heard. Every mode discussed below must be tested against that twin object: speed without sacrificing the reality of notice.

Contents and Form of the Summons

Order V Rule 1(3) requires that every summons be signed by the judge or such officer as he appoints, and sealed with the seal of the court. Rule 2 mandates that every summons be accompanied by a copy of the plaint or, where the court so permits, a concise statement. Rule 5 requires the summons to specify whether it is issued for the settlement of issues only or for the final disposal of the suit, and Rule 6 fixes the day for the defendant's appearance with regard to the place of residence and time needed for the defendant to reach the court. Rule 8, after the 2002 amendment, requires the court ordinarily to direct the defendant to produce all documents in his possession on which he intends to rely.

The Civil Rules of Practice framed by each High Court prescribe the printed forms, the number of copies to be filed with the plaint, and the process fee and talab to be paid before the summons is taken out. These local rules are not optional: a summons issued without the requisite copies or without the prescribed sealing is irregular, and the irregularity can vitiate the consequential service. Drafting precision at this stage links directly to the drafting of pleadings chapter, since the plaint copy that travels with the summons must itself comply with the local format.

Ordinary Service by the Court — Order V Rule 9

The default mode is service through the court. Order V Rule 9, as substituted by the 2002 amendment, provides that where the defendant resides within the jurisdiction of the court, the summons shall be delivered to the proper officer for service. Rule 9(3) permits the court, in addition to and simultaneously with personal service, to direct service by registered post acknowledgement due, by speed post, by an approved courier service, by fax message, or by electronic mail service, as may be provided by the rules made by the High Court. This menu of modes was a central plank of the reform upheld in Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344, where the Court held that allowing courier and electronic modes alongside the proper officer was within legislative competence and did not dilute natural justice, provided the safeguards in the rule were observed.

The proper officer effects personal service by delivering or tendering a copy of the summons signed by the judge and sealed with the seal of the court (Rule 10), and is required to obtain the defendant's signature in acknowledgement on the original (Rule 16). Where the summons is delivered to the proper officer, the establishment that supports this process — the process-serving section of each court — is itself organised under the local rules discussed in the establishment and hierarchy chapter.

Deemed Service on Refusal — Order V Rule 9(5)

A recurring problem is the defendant who simply refuses to take delivery. Order V Rule 9(5) answers it. Where an acknowledgement purporting to be signed by the defendant or his agent is received, or where the postal article containing the summons is returned with an endorsement by a postal employee that the defendant or his agent refused to take delivery, the court issuing the summons shall declare that the summons has been duly served. Crucially, the proviso provides that where the summons was properly addressed, pre-paid and duly sent by registered post acknowledgement due, the declaration of due service shall be made notwithstanding that the acknowledgement was lost, mislaid, or not received within thirty days of issue.

This deeming provision is a powerful anti-evasion tool, but it is not automatic: the court must apply its mind and pass a positive declaration of due service. A mechanical recital is insufficient; the endorsement of refusal must be genuine and the address must be the correct one furnished by the plaintiff. Where the postal endorsement is doubtful or the address is shown to be wrong, the deeming fiction does not arise and the plaintiff must fall back on another mode. The careful framing of the relief and the parties' addresses in the plaint, addressed in the issue framing and pleadings chapters, therefore feeds directly into whether the deeming under Rule 9(5) can be invoked.

Personal Service and Service on Agents, Family Members and Co-Defendants

The Code prefers service on the defendant in person. Order V Rule 12 requires that, wherever practicable, service be made on the defendant personally, unless he has an agent empowered to accept service, in which case service on that agent is sufficient. Rule 13 deals with service on an agent by whom the defendant carries on business in suits relating to that business. Rule 14 governs service on an agent in charge of immovable property in suits for that property.

Rule 15 provides a controlled substitute where the defendant is absent. If the defendant is absent from his residence at the time service is sought and there is no likelihood of his being found within a reasonable time, and he has no empowered agent, service may be made on any adult member of the family, whether male or female, residing with him. The Explanation makes clear that a servant is not a member of the family for this purpose. Rule 11 permits service on one of several defendants where there is more than one defendant. These provisions are construed strictly because they substitute another person's receipt for the defendant's own; service on a minor, a casual visitor, or a mere servant is no service at all, and a decree founded on it is vulnerable under Order IX Rule 13.

Affixation When the Defendant Refuses or Cannot Be Found — Order V Rule 17

Order V Rule 17 supplies the field-level remedy when ordinary service fails. Where the defendant or his agent refuses to sign the acknowledgement, or where the serving officer, after using all due and reasonable diligence, cannot find the defendant who is absent from his residence with no likelihood of being found within a reasonable time and there is no empowered agent, the serving officer shall affix a copy of the summons on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the defendant ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. The officer must then return the original to the court with a report stating that he affixed the copy, the circumstances, the name and address of the person who identified the house, and the person in whose presence the copy was affixed.

Affixation under Rule 17 is not the same as substituted service ordered by the court under Rule 20; it is a field act of the process server. Its validity, however, depends on strict proof of due and reasonable diligence. Rule 18 requires the serving officer to annex the date and time of affixation. Rule 19 then empowers the court, where the report has not been verified by affidavit or where it is dissatisfied, to examine the serving officer on oath or cause the report to be verified, and either to declare the summons duly served or to order fresh service. The court's scrutiny under Rule 19 is the safeguard that prevents a lazy or collusive affixation from masquerading as good service.

Substituted Service by Court Order — Order V Rule 20

Where the court is satisfied that there is reason to believe the defendant is keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service, or that for any other reason the summons cannot be served in the ordinary way, it may order substituted service under Order V Rule 20. This is effected by affixing a copy of the summons in some conspicuous place in the court-house and at the house, if any, in which the defendant is known to have last resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain, and, in addition, by ordering publication in a daily newspaper. Rule 20(1A) requires that where the court orders newspaper service, the newspaper must be a daily circulating in the locality in which the defendant is last known to have actually and voluntarily resided, carried on business, or personally worked for gain. Rule 20(2) requires the court fixing a fresh date for appearance when ordering substituted service, and Rule 20(3) makes such service as effectual as personal service.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed that substituted service is an extraordinary mode and not a routine shortcut. In Smt. Yallawwa v. Smt. Shantavva, (1997) 11 SCC 159, the Court held that substituted service under Order V Rule 20 is not an ordinary mode of service and must be resorted to only in exceptional cases, as a last resort, after the court records satisfaction that the conditions precedent exist; the ex parte divorce decree founded on a casual newspaper publication was accordingly not allowed to stand. In Basant Singh v. Roman Catholic Mission, (2002) 7 SCC 531, the Court reiterated that the court must first be satisfied either that the defendant is keeping out of the way to avoid service or that service cannot be effected in the ordinary way before ordering publication, though it accepted that on the facts the requisite satisfaction may be implicit in the order directing service by publication.

Newspaper Publication and Its Sufficiency

Once substituted service by publication is properly ordered, the law does not require proof that the defendant actually read the advertisement. In Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank of India, (2008) 2 SCC 326, the Supreme Court held that service by advertisement in a newspaper is effective even though the defendant did not in fact read that newspaper, provided the newspaper is one circulating in the locality where the defendant last resided or carried on business. The validity of the service turns on compliance with Rule 20(1A) and not on the subjective fact of perusal.

The corollary is equally important: publication in a newspaper that has no real circulation in the relevant locality, or a casual notice issued without recording the satisfaction demanded by Rule 20 and explained in Yallawwa, will not amount to good service. Practitioners therefore select the newspaper deliberately — the vernacular daily of the defendant's locality rather than a metro edition with no penetration there — and place the order and the publication on record so that the deeming under Rule 20(3) can withstand a later challenge under Order IX Rule 13. The discipline of proving these facts dovetails with the rules on recording evidence and affidavits, since the affidavit of publication is the usual proof tendered.

Service by the Plaintiff — Order V Rule 9A (Dasti Summons)

The 2002 amendment introduced Order V Rule 9A, permitting the court, on the application of the plaintiff, to grant leave for the summons to be served by the plaintiff himself, commonly called dasti or personal-bearer service. The court delivers the summons, sealed and signed, to the plaintiff for service, and the plaintiff must take it personally, tender or deliver a copy to the defendant, obtain the defendant's acknowledgement, and return the original to the court with the endorsement of service. Where the defendant refuses to acknowledge or cannot be found, Rule 9A(3) provides that the court shall, on the plaintiff's application, re-issue the summons for service by the court in the ordinary way.

Dasti service speeds matters in practice, particularly in commercial and partition suits where the plaintiff knows the defendant's whereabouts. But because the plaintiff is an interested party, the courts scrutinise the endorsement of service carefully; an unverified or self-serving endorsement is treated with caution, and the safety valve of reverting to court service under Rule 9A(3) exists precisely to prevent abuse. The interplay between dasti service and the establishment that issues and seals the summons is governed by the local Civil Rules of Practice, which prescribe how the sealed summons is handed over and accounted for.

Electronic Service and the e-Summons Practice Directions

Order V Rule 9(3) already contemplates service by fax and electronic mail as approved by High Court rules. The decisive expansion came during the pandemic, when the Supreme Court, exercising its powers in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020), directed that service of notices, summons and pleadings may be effected by e-mail, fax, and commonly used instant-messaging services such as WhatsApp, Telegram and Signal, with the safeguard that a party effecting service by an instant-messaging service must simultaneously serve the same document by e-mail. This order gave nationwide sanction to electronic service and accelerated the adoption of e-summons through court technology platforms.

For electronic service to be good service, the practice directions and the underlying High Court rules generally require a reliable record of delivery — the double-tick or read receipt of the messaging application, or the delivery report of the e-mail server — placed on the court file. The position remains that electronic modes supplement rather than wholly displace the Order V scheme: where electronic delivery cannot be reliably demonstrated, the court reverts to the proper-officer or substituted modes. The evidentiary basis for proving electronic delivery draws on the certificate regime under Section 65B of the Evidence Act framework, a point developed further in the evidence chapter.

Service Outside Jurisdiction and on Special Categories of Defendants

Order V also provides for service where the defendant lies beyond the court's reach or belongs to a special class. Rules 21 to 24 govern service of summons on a defendant residing within the jurisdiction of another court, permitting transmission of the summons to that court or to its officer, including by post or approved courier, for service there. Rule 25 deals with the defendant who resides outside India and has no agent in India empowered to accept service, allowing service by post or other approved means at the place where the defendant actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business.

Special defendants are separately catered for. Rules 27 to 30 deal with service on public officers and on railway, local-authority and government servants, requiring the summons ordinarily to be sent to the head of the office for service; Rule 28 governs service on soldiers, sailors and airmen through their commanding officer. For corporate defendants, Order XXIX Rule 2 provides that service may be effected on the secretary, or on any director or principal officer of the corporation, or by leaving it at or sending it by post to the registered office, or, where there is no registered office, to the place where the corporation carries on business. Each of these special modes presupposes correct identification of the defendant and its office in the plaint, again linking back to the plaint and annexures chapter.

Amendments, Omitted Rules and the Reform Trajectory

The Order V scheme has been recast twice in living memory, and two omitted rules are worth knowing for examination accuracy. Order V Rule 20A, which had provided for simultaneous issue of summons for service by post, was omitted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 with effect from 1 February 1977. Separately, Rule 19A, a later provision again dealing with simultaneous service by registered post, was omitted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 with effect from 1 July 2002, because its content was absorbed into the substituted and expanded Rule 9. Candidates frequently confuse these two omissions; the safe memory hook is 1976/Rule 20A and 1999 (effective 2002)/Rule 19A.

The 1999 and 2002 amendments, upheld in Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344, are the spine of the modern law: the thirty-day written-statement timeline in Rule 1, the multi-mode service menu in Rule 9, the deeming on refusal in Rule 9(5), and dasti service in Rule 9A all flow from that reform package. The trajectory is unmistakably towards faster, technology-assisted service, capped by the In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation directions on electronic service. The constant, however, is the insistence that speed must not hollow out the defendant's real opportunity to know of the suit.

Consequences of Defective Service and the Order IX Remedy

Service is consequential because of what follows it. If the defendant does not appear and the court is satisfied that the summons was duly served, the suit may proceed ex parte under Order IX Rule 6. But where service was irregular, the defendant may apply under Order IX Rule 13 to set aside the ex parte decree on showing that the summons was not duly served or that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing. The proviso to Rule 13 protects against technical irregularities where the defendant had notice of the hearing and sufficient time to appear, so that a mere defect in form will not upset a decree if the substance of notice was achieved.

The case law converges on a single test: did the mode adopted, properly proved, give the defendant a real and reasonable chance to know of the proceeding? Yallawwa set aside a decree because substituted service was casually ordered; Sunil Poddar upheld service because a properly ordered newspaper publication satisfied the rule even without actual perusal; and Salem Advocate Bar Association sustained the modern modes because they came hedged with safeguards. For the practitioner, the lesson is procedural hygiene — choose the correct mode, prove it on affidavit, and place the order and proof on record — so that the decree, when obtained, is unassailable. For a fuller view of how these rules sit within the local civil-court framework, return to the Civil Rules of Practice hub and the introductory chapter.