The Indian Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) is a procedural law that governs the proceedings in civil courts in India. It is a comprehensive statute that lays down the procedure to be followed in civil suits. One of the important provisions under the CPC is Order V, Rule 20 which deals with substituted services.

Substituted service refers to the process of serving a legal notice or summons on a party in a manner other than the usual personal service, usually when the usual methods of service are not possible or have failed. The purpose of substituted services is to ensure that justice is served even when direct service is not possible.

It ensures that the legal rights of the parties are protected and that no party is denied their right to fair trial due to technicalities in the service of legal process. In this assignment, we will delve deeper into the concept of substituted services under the CPC, understand the provisions laid down in Order V, Rule 20, and analyze the purpose and importance of substituted services in the Indian legal system.

Historical Background
The concept of substituted services has a long historical evolution and has been recognized and accepted in various legal systems across the globe. In India, the provisions for substituted services have been an integral part of the Civil Procedure Code since its inception in 1908. The principle of substituted services has its roots in the common law system and has been shaped and refined over time through various judicial decisions and statutory amendments.

In the early years of the CPC, substituted services were allowed only in limited circumstances and were subject to strict procedural requirements. However, over time, the courts recognized the need for flexibility in the service of legal process, especially in cases where the parties were evading service or where the usual methods of service were not practicable.

One of the landmark cases that shaped the jurisprudence on substituted services in India is the case of The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Bombay v. Armando Coelho and Another (2007). In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that substituted services could be made by affixing the summons to the outer door of the defendant's residence or place of business, even if the defendant was not present at the time of affixation.

The Court also held that the defendant could be deemed to have received the summons if the plaintiff could establish that the defendant had evaded service. Another important case is the case of Udit Narain Singh v. Singhara Singh (2005), where the Supreme Court held that substituted services could be made by sending the summons through registered post or courier service to the defendant's address, even if the defendant refused to accept the summons or was not present at the time of delivery.

These cases, along with various other judicial decisions, have helped shape the jurisprudence on substituted services in India and have provided clarity on the procedure and requirements for making substituted services under the CPC.

Interpretation Of Order V, Rule 20

Order V, Rule 20 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) deals with substituted services and lays down the procedure for serving summons or other process on a party when the usual methods of service are not possible or have failed.6 The rule states that if the serving officer is unable to serve the summons in the manner prescribed under the preceding rules, he shall affix a copy thereof to some conspicuous part of the defendant's house or homestead or usual place of residence.

The rule further provides that if the serving officer is unable to serve the summons in the manner prescribed under the preceding rules and the suit is one in which the defendant is bound to appear and answer, the serving officer shall leave a copy of the summons with some adult member of the defendant's family residing with him. However, it is important to note that the court has the discretion to allow substituted services in other ways as well, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.

For example, in the case of Anil Kumar v. M.K. Ayyappa Naik (2012), the Supreme Court held that substituted services could be made by affixing the summons to the outer door of the defendant's residence or place of business, even if the defendant was not present at the time of affixation. The court also has the discretion to require the serving officer to make further attempts to serve the summons in the manner prescribed under the preceding rules before resorting to substituted services.

Validity Of Substituted Services

Substituted services, as provided for in Order V, Rule 20 of the CPC, can be deemed valid if the process server has made a genuine and diligent effort to serve the summons in person to the defendant but has failed to do so due to unavoidable circumstances. The purpose of substituted services is to ensure that the defendant is aware of the legal proceedings and has an opportunity to participate in the case, even if personal service is not possible.

Factors Influencing the Validity of Substituted Service Several factors may influence the validity of substituted services, including:

• Diligence of the Process Server: The process server must make genuine efforts to locate and serve the summons on the defendant. If the process server has made reasonable efforts to locate the defendant and has exhausted all means of personal service, substituted services may be deemed valid.
   
• Presence of an Adult Family Member: If the process server is unable to serve the summons on the defendant personally, but manages to serve it on an adult family member residing with the defendant, this may be considered a valid substituted service.
   
• Conspicuous Placement: In cases where the process server has affixed the summons to a conspicuous part of the defendant's residence or place of business, this may be deemed a valid substituted service if it is unlikely to go unnoticed by the defendant.
   
• Judicial Discretion: Ultimately, the decision on the validity of substituted services rests with the court. The court may consider various factors, including the circumstances under which the substituted service was made, the efforts made by the process server, and the likelihood that the defendant received the summons.

Case Law Examples
Valid Substituted Services:
In the case of Kuldeep Singh v. Surinder Singh (2005), the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that substituted service through affixation of the summons on the outer door of the defendant's residence was valid, as the defendant had deliberately avoided service.

In Smt. Radha Debi v. Maharaja Singh (2007), the Delhi High Court held that service by publication In a local newspaper, followed by affixation of the summons at the defendant's residence, was valid substituted service.

Invalid Substituted Services:
In the case of Kadapatti Yellappa v. Shree Sailakshmi Temple (2010), the Karnataka High Court held that substituted service by affixation of the summons at the defendant's residential address was invalid, as the process server had not made genuine efforts to locate the defendant and had not exhausted all means of personal service. In Shubhra Shankar Sarkar v. State of West Bengal (2015), the Calcutta High Court held that service through affixation of the summons on the defendant's residence was invalid, as there was no evidence to suggest that the defendant was avoiding service or that the process server had made reasonable efforts to serve the summons personally.

Understanding Substituted Services

Order V, Rule 20 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) deals with Substituted Services. When personal service of a summons or other process cannot be made, the Court may order service by affixing a copy thereof in some conspicuous place in the Court-house, and also upon some conspicuous part of the house (if any) in which the defendant ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, and also, if necessary, upon any other place or houses for which the Court thinks proper. If service in the manner above prescribed is not practicable, the Court may order service otherwise as it thinks fit.

Judicial Perspective On Substituted Services

Judicial perspective on substituted services has evolved over time. Initially, substituted services were seen as a last resort, used only when it was impossible to serve the summons in person. However, as courts recognized the challenges and limitations of personal service, the perspective on substituted services changed.

Today, courts understand that substituted services are not only necessary but also beneficial in ensuring that legal proceedings are fair and efficient. The Indian judiciary has laid down guidelines for substituted services, outlining the circumstances under which they can be used and the procedure to be followed. This has provided clarity and consistency in the application of substituted services.

Judges now have discretion in accepting or rejecting substituted services based on the facts and circumstances of each case. They consider factors such as the efforts made by the process server, the likelihood that the defendant received the summons, and whether the defendant has evaded service. This approach ensures that substituted services are used appropriately and effectively.

Overall, the judicial perspective on substituted services has shifted from being a last resort to being a necessary and beneficial tool in ensuring access to justice. Courts now recognize the importance of substituted services in ensuring that legal proceedings are fair and efficient, and they have developed guidelines and procedures to ensure their effective application.

Challenges And Solutions:
Challenges in the Application of Substituted Services:

• Inefficiency and delays: One of the significant challenges in the application of substituted services is the potential for inefficiency and delays in the process. This can result from the process server's lack of diligence, or from the defendant's deliberate evasion of service.
• Lack of Clear Guidelines: In some cases, there may be a lack of clear guidelines for substituted services, leading to confusion and inconsistency in their application.
• Cost and Resource Constraints: Substituted services can be more costly and resource-intensive compared to personal service, particularly when additional steps are required, such as publication in a newspaper.
• Technical and Practical Challenges: In some cases, technical and practical challenges may arise, such as difficulties in locating the defendant or ensuring that the substituted service is likely to come to the defendant's attention.

Suggestions for Improvements and Reforms:

• Training and Accountability: There is a need for enhanced training and accountability for process servers to ensure that they understand the requirements for substituted services and carry out their duties diligently.
• Clearer Guidelines: Clearer guidelines and procedures for substituted services could help reduce confusion and inconsistency in their application. This could include guidelines on when substituted services are appropriate and how they should be carried out.
• Use of Technology: The use of technology, such as electronic service and tracking systems, could help improve the efficiency and effectiveness of substituted services.
• Streamlining Procedures: Streamlining the procedures for substituted services, such as reducing the number of steps required or providing for electronic service, could help reduce costs and resource constraints.
• Judicial Oversight: Enhanced judicial oversight of substituted services, including clear reasons for accepting or rejecting substituted services, could help ensure fairness and transparency in the process.

Conclusion
In conclusion, Substituted Services play a vital role in ensuring that the legal process is fair and accessible to all parties involved. Order V, Rule 20 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) provides for substituted services in cases where personal service of a summons or other process cannot be made. However, the application of substituted services can be challenging, and there is room for improvement in the way they are carried out.

Summary Of Key Points:

• Substituted Services are an integral part of the Indian legal system, allowing for the fair and efficient resolution of disputes.
• Order V, Rule 20 of the CPC provides for substituted services when personal service is not possible.
• There are challenges in the application of substituted services, including inefficiency, lack of clear guidelines, cost and resource constraints, and technical and practical challenges.
• There are several suggestions for improvements and reforms, including enhanced training and accountability for process servers, clearer guidelines and procedures, the use of technology, and judicial oversight.

Reiterating the Importance of Substituted Services
Despite the challenges, substituted services are crucial for ensuring access to justice. They allow for the resolution of disputes even when personal service is not possible, ensuring that no party is denied their right to fair trial due to technicalities in the service of legal process. Substituted services also help prevent unnecessary delays in the legal process, ensuring that cases are resolved in a timely manner.

Insights for Future Research and Development:
There are several areas for future research and development in the field of substituted services. These include:

• Further study on the effectiveness of substituted services in different contexts and under different circumstances.
• Development of clear guidelines and procedures for substituted services.
• Exploration of the use of technology, such as electronic service and tracking systems, to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of substituted services.
• Examination of the role of judicial oversight in ensuring fairness and transparency in the process of substituted services.

In conclusion, while there are challenges in the application of substituted services, they play a crucial role in ensuring access to justice and the fair resolution of disputes. By addressing the challenges and implementing improvements and reforms, the Indian legal system can enhance the effectiveness and fairness of substituted services and ensure that the legal process is accessible to all.

Written By: Manmeet Singh, 4th Year Law student - Department of legal studies, Central University of Kashmir
Email: [email protected]