Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This, by itself, in my opinion, is enough to hold that the service of summons in the instant case was invalid and hence there was no due service of notice on the defendant in the suit is question.

However, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 submitted that in the present case the affirmation being by the serving peon himself before the Nazir, the provisions of Order V Rule 19 of the Code were complied with. There is no force in the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent no. 1 as, on a perusal of the affirmation portion it is abundantly clear that the affirmation is by the Nazir and not by the process server. Secondly, it is not in the Special form, i.e., in Form 11 of the Appendix 'B' of the first schedule of the Code which has prescribed the Form for affidavit by the process server of summons or notice.