JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma J.—Defendant No. 2 applicant, Sh. Ravinder Kapur has moved this application under Order 9 Rule 7, C, P. C for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings ordered against him on 16-12-1981. This suit and suit No 40 of 1981 have been consolidated with suit No- 24 of 1981 vide order dated 17-6-1985, inter alia, on the grounds that these pertain to the same property At the time of consolidation all the three suits were at arguments stage. The applicant is proforma defendant No 7 in Civil Suit No 24 of 1981 but he is being proceeded ex-parte therein. He has not applied for setting aside ex-parte proceedings in that suit. He is not a party in the third suit, Civil Suit No. 40 of 1981. 2. As stated in the application, the applicant acquired knowledge of the pendency of the suit on 26-3-1991 from Sh. Gian Chand Gupta, Advocate, Shimla, when he, alongwith his brother Ram Sarup Kapur, attended his office in connection with R. F As. No 67 and 79 of 1990 in which he is impleaded as proforma respondent. According to the applicant, be had not visited Shimla from the year 1977 to 26th March, 1991. He further states that on inspection of the suit file, he come to know that he was proceeded ex-parte on 14-12-1981 after publication of notice in Punjab Kesri and no personal service was effected on him. The address given in the publication notice as well as on the Registered cover, which was received undelivered, was also wrong. The applicant had never lived at the address given in the publication notice as well as the registered cover According to the applicant, his last known address was given in the sale-deed executed in favour of the plaintiff by him and others. But summons were neither published nor sent on that address intentionally. He further alleges that if no opportunity is given to him to defend the suit, he will not be able to counter the allegations made therein that he had agreed to sell his share in the suit property and had authorised his brother to enter into agreement with the plaintiffs on his behalf. The averments made in the application are supported by an affidavit of the applicant. 3. The averments made in the application are supported by an affidavit of the applicant. 3. The plaintiffs in their reply have taken preliminary objections of limitation, no good and sufficient ground for setting aside the ex-parte order and maintainability of the application besides denying the allegations on merits. According to them, since the applicant could not be served by ordinary mode of service and there was every likelihood of his evading service, the order of service by publication was passed by the Court. The plaintiffs have alleged that since the suit has been consolidated with other two suits and if ex-parte proceedings are set aside in the present suit, the trial in all the suits will be held denovo. Therefore, the present application is not maintainable. They have specifically denied that the applicant came to know of the pendency of the suit on 26-3-1991 as he had been coming to Shimla and his brother, defendant No. 1, had appeared initially in the suit. The application has been moved at the fag end of the suit at the instance of other defendants to fill in the lacunae in the case. 4. In order to decide the controversy between the parties, the following issues were framed and the parties were directed to adduce evidence thereon:— 1. Whether there is sufficient cause to set aside the ex-parte proceedings against Ravinder Kapur, defendant No. 2 ? O. P. applicant. 2. Relief. 5. Only applicant Ravinder Kapur has himself come forward to give statement in support of his application and reiterated all the allegations made in his application. The plaintiffs have not adduced any evidence. He has stated oh oath that he had never received summons in the suit. In the year 1977, he was residing at IIl-H/16 Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and thereafter shifted to 7/4 Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. From there he had shifted, only last year, to his own flat in Vikaspuri. On bis shifting from Lajpat Nagar residence, he had informed the Post Master to redirect his mail to his address at Tilak Nagar. He has produced his Pass-port, photo copy of which is Ex. AW-l/A to show that in June, 1981, he was residing at Tilak Nagar. In the sale-deed which he had executed in favour of plaintiff No 1, Sh. Pragya Nand, he had given his address of Lajpat Nagar. He has produced his Pass-port, photo copy of which is Ex. AW-l/A to show that in June, 1981, he was residing at Tilak Nagar. In the sale-deed which he had executed in favour of plaintiff No 1, Sh. Pragya Nand, he had given his address of Lajpat Nagar. He has stated on oath that before March, 1991, he had visited Shimla in December, 1977 to execute sale-deed in favour defendant No. 7, Sh. Hanwant Dass. According to him, during the last 12/13 years, he has also beea residing at Neem-Ka-Thana, District Sikkar, Rtjasthan besides his residence in Delhi la cross-examination, ne has stated that he was not served in the suit out of which the R. F. As. No. 67 and 79 of 1990 have arisen and bad come to know of the decree passed in the suit when summons in R. F. A. were received by him through his sister-in-law, Smt. Sarla Kapur, wife of his brother Ram Sarup Kapur, which were sent at 6-A Jantar Mantar Annexe, New Peihi, He has further stated that at the address, A-64, Defence Colony, New Delhi, Ksharg his sister was residing from 1967-68 till the time she shifted to her own house 4/5 years ago. He has admitted that his sister knew his address and site was on visiting terms with him He has categorically denied that his brother had told him about the pendency of the suit, it was after inspecting the files that he had come to know that his brother, Sh. Ram Sarup Kapur, defendant No. 1, had engaged a Counsel in Civil Suit No. 24 of 1980 but later on ex-parte proceedings were Held against him. The applicant has categorically denied that he had come to know about the present suit from the publication in the Panjab Kesri and he had intentionally not contested it. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The suit was originally filed in the court of Senior Sub-Judge, Shimla and proceedings from 15-10-1977 to 28-7-1981 were held in the court of Sub-Judge (II), Shimla There is no evidence on the record that at any point of time efforts were made to effect personal service on the applicant. On 4-8-1978, summons were ordered to be sent to him by registered post. On 4-8-1978, summons were ordered to be sent to him by registered post. There is one Registered cover on the file which was received back with the remarks of the Post Man "No such person in A-460, Defence Colony". The address of the applicant given in the Registered cover is "son of Sh. Gobind Swarup Kapur, A-460, Defence Colony, New Delhi". On receipt of Registered Cover undelivered, the plaintiffs moved an application under Order 5 Rule 20, CPG. which was allowed by the Court on 25-6-1981 and directions were issued to serve the applicant by publication in Panjab Kesri. The averments made in Para 2 of the said application were as under :— "2. That summons for service of defendants Nos. 1 to 4 on all available addresses, were sent through ordinary mode of service as well as by Registered post but these Defendants could not be served. The plaintiff believes that the defendants are avoiding service in order to dely the proceedings in the suit. The defendants in the above suit deserve to be served through substituted means of service in view of the circumstances mentioned above. It is, therefore, prayed that in the interest of justice Defendants Nos. 1 and 4 may be ordered to be served by substituted mode of service." 7. Thereafter the suit was transferred to this Court and on their depositing publication charges, notice to the applicant and others was published in Paojab Kesri on 22-11-1981. The address of the applicant given in the publication notice was this time A-407, Defence Colony, New Delhi as well as the present address, Rock Sea Hotel, the Mall, Shimla. 8. From these facts, it is very clear that at no point of time, any effort was made to effect service on the applicant by ordinary course. The notice by registered post was sent at the address A-460, Defence Colony, New Delhi, as given in the plaint, whereas the address in the publication notice is A-407, Defence Colony, New Delhi, It is not shown by the plaintiffs that the applicant was ever living on these addresses. Even in cross-examination, these addresses were not put to him. Only a vague question was asked whether his sister was residing at Defence Colony, New Delhi address since 1967-68. Even in cross-examination, these addresses were not put to him. Only a vague question was asked whether his sister was residing at Defence Colony, New Delhi address since 1967-68. When Registered A.D. cover was received undelivered with the remarks that no such person by the name of applicant was residing at A-460, Defence Colony, the plaintiffs were required to file correct address of the applicant instead of filing application under Order 3 Rule 20, C. P. C. praying for substituted service by way of publication. The application under Order 3 Rule 20, C P. C. was not supported by an affidavit. The averments made in Para 2 of the application, which has been reproduced hereinabove, are prima facie against the records. How could the plaintiffs believe that the applicant was evading service in order to delay the proceedings of the suit when no attempt was made to serve him through ordinary mode of service and Registered A. D. cover was sent on an address where he was not living as per the remarks given by the Post Man The Court had mechanically passed the order of substituted service without satisfying itself whether the requirements of Order 5 Rule 20 C P C were fulfilled or not. Now, it is proved by the statement of the applicant which stands unrebutted, that the address available with plaintiff No 1 Sh Pragya Nand, was III-H/16 Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, which was given in" the sale-deed executed in his favour as far back as on 19-8-1968 (This sale deed is Ex. D-2 in Civil Suit No. 24 of 1980). It is also proved that the applicant had come to Shimla in December. 197? to execute sale-deed in favour of defendant No. 7, Sh Hanwant Dass and had stayed in Rock Sea Hotel for two days only. D-2 in Civil Suit No. 24 of 1980). It is also proved that the applicant had come to Shimla in December. 197? to execute sale-deed in favour of defendant No. 7, Sh Hanwant Dass and had stayed in Rock Sea Hotel for two days only. It is not explained by the plaintiffs why instead of Lajpat Nagar address, which was known to them, they had given address of Defence Colony and that too of a house where none of the relations of the applicant was ever residing The sister of the applicant was though residing in Defence Colony but at House No 64 and not 460 It is also not known why a different address was given in the publication notice which was also not put to the applicant in cross-examination to show that he had ever resided there From such type of evidence on record, it cannot be held that the applicant was ever served in the suit and ex-parte proceedings held against him are justified 9. In the present case, the provisions of Order 5. C. P. C have not been adhered to at all Under Rule i2 of Order 5, C P. C. it is provided that where ever it is practicable, service shall be made on the defendant in person unless be has an agent empowered to accept service in which case service on such agent shall be sufficient. Further, under Rule 15 of Order 5 C P. C, it is laid down that if the defendant is not found by the Processerver nor has he any authorised agent to accept service of summons service may be effected on any adult male member of the family of the defendant who may be residing with him. Under Rule 17 of Order 5 C. P. C. if the serving officer, after using all due and reasonable diligence cannot find the defendant and there is no authorised agent or any male member of the house to accept service, the serving officer should 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 and shall make a report relating thereto giving all the facts and circumstances. It is only when the modes of service provided under Rules 15 and 17 of Order 5, C. P. C. are complied with and the Court is satisfied and comes to the conclusion that there are reasons to believe that the defendant is keeping out of the way for the purpose of evading service or that for any other reasons, the summons cannot be served in ordinary way, the Court may order summons to be served by substituted service which is by affixing a copy on some conspicuous part of the house last resided by him or where he carried on business or personally worked for gain lastly. But this mode of substituted service is to be adopted as a last resort and the Court has been empowered to order service of the defendant in any other manner which has now been clarified in the amended Rule 20 (1-A) that service may be ordered to be effected through publication in the news paper. The provisions of Order 5 Rule 20, C. P. C. ate not to be read in isolation but in conjunction with earlier provisions which shows that order regarding service of defendant by way of publication in the news paper is to be passed as a last resort when there is no possibility of effecting service on him by other modes as provided therein. Before passing order of substituted service by publication in the news paper the Court must satisfy that there are reasons to believe that the defendant was keeping out of the wav to evade service If the order of substituted service is passed mechanically by the Court, there is likelihood of mis-use of the process of the Court So far the order of substituted service by publication in a news paper Is concerned it should not be passed lightly without ascertaining whether the pre-requisites of Order 5 Rule 20, C P C. are fulfilled as it is a matter of common knowledge that generally people do not read Court notices in the news papers The anxiety of the courts to expendite the proceedings in cases by hurrying up with the service of the defendant by resorting to extraordinary mode of substituted service, such as publication in the news paper, may defeat the very purpose and result in gross injustice. (See : Bitjit Singh Bhatia v Kulwant Singh and others, 1978 PLR 287 ; Kuldip Singh v Sharon Singh, 1989 (1) PLR 536 : Sant Kaur v. Khazan Singh, 989 CCC 449, Smt Ishro v. Sarmukh Singh, 1990 (1) PLR 324, Harbhej Singh v. Diwan Singh and others. 1990 CCC 258, and Bijender Singh v. Ranbir Singh and others, 1990 (1) PLR 375. 10. The present case is an example of the abuse of the process of the Court by resorting to substituted service on the applicant by publication in the news paper. Even the service by publication in Punjab Kesri is not proper as the address given therein is not the address of toe applicant where be has ever lived The issue is decided in the affirmative that the applicant has been able to show that there is sufficient cause to set aside the exparte proceedings against him. 11. In the result, the application is allowed and the ex parte order dated 16-12-198 passed against the applicant is set aside, subject to costs of Rs. 1,000. He is directed to file his written statement within a period of two weeks and replication within three weeks thereafter. The suit will proceed in accordance with law It is made clear that this order will not affect the trial of other suits No. 24 of 1981 and 40 of 1981 and the parties may file an application to get them deconsolidated, if they so desire. Application allowed.