ORDER : Anil K. Narendran, J. This First Appeal is filed under Order XLIII, Rule (1)(d) read with Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, ‘the Code’), against the order dated 31.10.2018 of the Additional Sub Court-II, Ernakulam, in I.A.No.3909 of 2015 in O.S.No.295 of 2012, whereby the application filed by the appellant-defendant under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 30.06.2012 in the suit stands dismissed, for the reasons stated therein. 2. By the order of reference dated 16.03.2020, a Division Bench of this Court directed the Registry to place this matter before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, since the Division Bench doubted the correctness of the law laid down by another Division Bench in Arundas v. Priji [ 2017 (4) KLT 1060 ] that, under the provisions of Order V, Rule 15 of the Code service of notice can be made on an adult member of the defendant’s family, who is residing with him, only if it is specifically so ordered by the court. Based on the orders of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, this matter is listed before us. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent alone is contesting the matter. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that, in view of the provisions under Order V, Rule 15 of the Code, service of summons can be made on an adult member of the defendant’s family, who is residing with him, only if it is specifically ordered so by the court, as held by the Division Bench in Arundas [ 2017 (4) KLT 1060 ]. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent contended that, as noticed in the order of reference dated 16.03.2020, where there is no likelihood of the defendant being found at his residence within a reasonable time, and he has no agent empowered to accept service of summons on his behalf, service can be made on an adult member of his family, who is residing with him, without obtaining specific orders from the court. 6. 6. The appellant is the defendant in O.S.No.295 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Sub Court-II, Ernakulam, a suit filed by the 1st respondent herein-plaintiff for realisation of Rs.25,00,000/- from the defendant with interest; a declaration that document No.666/2006 of the Sub Registrar Office, Ernakulam, is fictitious, sham, outcome of fraud and misrepresentation and not binding on the plaintiff; and a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing into plaint A schedule property and interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of that property. 6.1. The defendant remained ex parte. The plaintiff filed proof affidavit and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked. By the judgment dated 30.06.2012, the Sub Court decreed O.S.No. 295 of 2012, by setting aside document No.666/2006 of the Sub Registrar Office, Ernakulam. The defendant is restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into plaint A schedule property and the plaintiff is allowed to recover a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the suit till realisation from the defendant and his assets. 6.2. The defendant filed I.A.No.3909 of 2015 in O.S.No. 295 of 2012, an application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code, for setting aside the ex parte decree on the ground that summons was not duly served on him. On the strength of the ex parte decree, the plaintiff transferred plaint A schedule property to his wife, the 2nd respondent in I.A.No.3909 of 2015 (2nd respondent herein), who transferred the said property to the 3rd respondent in I.A.No.3909 of 2015 (3rd respondent herein). In the said interlocutory application, respondents 1 and 2 did not file any objection. The 3rd respondent filed objection mainly contending that there is due service of summons on the defendant and he was aware of the pendency of O.S.No.295 of 2012. The defendant did not adduce any evidence. On the side of the 3rd respondent, RWs.1 and 2 were examined. The process server was examined as RW2. Exts.B1 to B15 were marked on the side of the respondents and Exts.C1 and C1(a) were marked as court exhibits. 6.3. The defendant did not adduce any evidence. On the side of the 3rd respondent, RWs.1 and 2 were examined. The process server was examined as RW2. Exts.B1 to B15 were marked on the side of the respondents and Exts.C1 and C1(a) were marked as court exhibits. 6.3. Before the Sub Court, relying on the decision of a Division Bench in Arundas [ 2017 (4) KLT 1060 ], the defendant argued that, without an order from the court for service of summons on an adult member of the defendant’s family, the mode of service adopted by RW2, the process server, is illegal. Repelling that contention, the Sub Court dismissed I.A.No.3909 of 2015, by the order dated 31.10.2018, on the ground that, since summons was served on the sister of the defendant, who is residing along with him, service of summons on an adult member of the defendant's family, without an order from the court, can only be considered as an irregularity committed by the process server, which cannot be a ground to set aside the ex parte decree, since as per the second proviso to Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code, no court shall set aside a decree passed ex parte merely on the ground that there has been irregularity in the service of summons, if it is satisfied that the defendant had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiff's claim. The Sub Court found that the defendant filed I.A.No.3909 of 2015 after more than three years, without showing sufficient cause for his non-appearance on the date of hearing of O.S.No.295 of 2012. 6.4. The defendant filed I.A.No.4134 of 2018 before the Sub Court, under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code, seeking review of the order dated 31.10.2018 in I.A.No.3909 of 2015 in O.S.No.295 of 2012, contending that, the court did not consider his arguments relying on the decision in Arundas [ 2017 (4) KLT 1060 ] that, service of summons on an adult member of the defendant’s family, without an order from the court, is illegal. Therefore, there is error apparent on the face of the record. 6.5. The 3rd respondent filed objection in I.A.No.4134 of 2018, contending that, there is no error apparent on the face of the record, warranting interference in exercise of the review jurisdiction. Therefore, there is error apparent on the face of the record. 6.5. The 3rd respondent filed objection in I.A.No.4134 of 2018, contending that, there is no error apparent on the face of the record, warranting interference in exercise of the review jurisdiction. Though the Sub Court gave ample opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence, the defendant did not avail that opportunity. Therefore, I.A.No.4134 of 2018 is liable to be dismissed. After considering the rival contentions, the Sub Court dismissed I.A.No.4134 of 2018, by the order dated 24.06.2019, holding that, there is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the order dated 31.10.2018 in I.A.No.3909 of 2015 in O.S.No. 295 of 2012. 7. Order V of the Code deals with issue and service of summons. Order V, Rule 1 deals with summons. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 1, substituted by Section 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 2 of 2002) with effect from 01.07.2002, when a suit has been duly instituted, a summons may be issued to the defendant to appear and answer the claim and to file the written statement of his defence, if any, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on that defendant. Rule 9 deals with delivery of summons by court. As per Rule 10, which deals with mode of service, service of the summons shall be made by delivering or tendering a copy thereof signed by the Judge or such officer as he appoints in this behalf, and sealed with the seal of the court. As per Rule 11, save as otherwise prescribed, where there are more defendants than one, service of the summons shall be made on each defendant. As per Rule 12, wherever it is practicable, service shall be made on the defendant in person, unless he has an agent empowered to accept service, in which case service on such agent shall be sufficient. Rule 13 deals with service on agent by whom the defendant carries on business. Rule 14 deals with service on agent in charge in suits for immovable property. 8. Order V Rule 15 of the Code provides for service of summons on an adult member of the defendant’s family. Rule 13 deals with service on agent by whom the defendant carries on business. Rule 14 deals with service on agent in charge in suits for immovable property. 8. Order V Rule 15 of the Code provides for service of summons on an adult member of the defendant’s family. Rule 15, as substituted by Section 55 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act 104 of 1976) with effect from 01.02.1977, is extracted hereunder; “15. Where service may be on an adult member of defendant's family.- Where in a suit the defendant is absent from his residence at the time when the service of summons is sought to be effected on him at his residence and there is no likelihood of his being found at the residence within a reasonable time and he has no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf service may be made on any adult member of the family, whether male or female, who is residing with him. Explanation- A servant is not a member of the family within the meaning of this rule." 9. Order V Rule 15 of the Code, as it stood prior to its substitution by Section 55 of Act 104 of 1976 reads thus; “15. Where service may be on a male member of defendant's family.- Where in a suit the defendant cannot be found and has no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, service may be made on any male member of the family of the defendant, who is residing with him. Explanation- A servant is not a member of the family within the meaning of this rule." 10. A reading of the aforesaid provisions would make it explicitly clear that, as per the provisions under Order V Rule 15 of the Code, as it stood prior to its substitution by Section 55 of Act 104 of 1976, where in a suit the defendant cannot be found and has no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, service may be made on any male member of the family of the defendant, who is residing with him. As per the provisions under Order V Rule 15, after its substitution by Section 55 of Act 104 of 1976, where in a suit the defendant is absent from his residence at the time when the service of summons is sought to be effected on him at his residence and there is no likelihood of his being found at the residence within a reasonable time and has no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, service may be made on any adult member of the family, whether male or female, who is residing with him. 11. The effect of the amendment made to Order V Rule 15 of the Code, by Section 55 of Act 104 of 1976, is as follows; Prior to the amendment made by Section 55 of Act 104 of 1976, the process server could effect service of summons under Order V Rule 15 of the Code, in case the defendant in a suit cannot be found and he has no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, on any male member of his family, who is residing with him. However, after the said amendment, the process server can effect service of summons on the defendant under Order V, Rule 15 of the Code, in case the defendant, who has no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, is absent from his residence at the time when the service of summons is sought to be effected on him at his residence and there is no likelihood of his being found at the residence within a reasonable time, on any adult member of the family, whether male or female, who is residing with him. 12. Appendix B to the Code deals with process. The affidavit of process server to accompany return of summons or notice should be in Form 11. As per Form 11, Paragraph 3 of the affidavit, in case service of summons is effected under Order V, Rule 15 or 17, shall be as follows; “(3) The said …… and the house in which he ordinarily resides being personally known to me, I went to the said house, in …… and thereon the …… day of ……. 19 … /20 …. , at about …. O’ clock in the ……. noon, I did not find the said …… . 19 … /20 …. , at about …. O’ clock in the ……. noon, I did not find the said …… . ……………… ……………… (a) Enter fully and exactly the manner in which process was served, with special reference to Order V, Rule 15 and 17. (b) Signature of process server. or (3) One …… accompanied me to …… and there pointed out to me …… which he said was the house in which …… ordinarily resides. I did not find the said …… there. ……………… ……………… (a) Enter fully and exactly the manner in which process was served, with special reference to Order V, Rule 15 and 17. (b) Signature of process server.” (underline supplied) 13. After the amendment made to Order V, Rule 15 of the Code, by Section 55 of Act 104 of 1976, the process server can effect service of summons on the defendant under Order V, Rule 15 of the Code, in case the defendant, who has no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, is absent from his residence at the time when the service of summons is sought to be effected on him at his residence, and there is no likelihood of the defendant being found at his residence within a reasonable time, on any adult member of his family, whether male or female, who is residing with him. In the affidavit filed in Form No.11 to Appendix B of the Code, the process server has to enter fully and exactly the manner in which process was served, with special reference to Order V, Rule 15 of the Code and that, on enquiry with the adult member of the defendant’s family, who is residing with the defendant, he is satisfied that, there is no likelihood of the defendant being found at his residence within a reasonable time. 14. Rule 80 of the Civil Rules of Practice, Kerala deals with verification of return. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 80, the return of service shall be verified by the affidavit of the serving officer and the Central or Deputy Nazir shall administer the oath or take the affirmation of the process server. 14. Rule 80 of the Civil Rules of Practice, Kerala deals with verification of return. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 80, the return of service shall be verified by the affidavit of the serving officer and the Central or Deputy Nazir shall administer the oath or take the affirmation of the process server. As per sub-rule (5) of Rule 80, where another person accepts the summons on behalf of the person to be served, it should be noted whether the person served is living with or is undivided from the person on whose behalf he accepts service and in the case of an agent, whether he is duly authorised to accept service. In view of the provisions under sub-rule (5) of Rule 80 of the Civil Rules of Practice, Kerala, in the case of service of summons on an adult member of the defendant’s family under Order V, Rule 15 of the Code, the facts as required in the said sub-rule have to be stated in the affidavit of the process server. 15. In Auto Cars v. Trimurti Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd. [ (2018) 15 SCC 166 ] the Apex Court held that, the object behind sending the summons is essentially threefold; firstly, it is to apprise the defendant about the filing of a case by the plaintiff against him; secondly, to serve the defendant with the copy of the plaint filed against him; and thirdly, to inform the defendant about actual day, date, year, time and the particular court so that he is able to appear in court on the date fixed for his/her appearance in the said case and answer the suit either personally or through his lawyer. 16. 16. In Suresh Kumar v. Godaveribai [ AIR 1992 MP 205 ], a decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that, from a reading of the provisions under Order V, Rule 15 of the Code, it is manifest that, service of the summons can be made on an adult member of the defendant's family, provided the following conditions exist at the time of such service; (i) that the defendant is absent from his residence at the time when the service of summons is sought to be effected on him at his residence; (ii) that there is no likelihood of the defendant being found at the residence within a reasonable time; and (iii) that the defendant has no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf. If the above three conditions exist, then the summon may be served on an adult member of the family, whether male or female. On the facts of the case, the Single Bench noticed that, as per the report of the process server, one of the preconditions for service on the adult member of the family is absent, i.e., that there is no likelihood of the defendant being found at his residence within a reasonable time. Therefore, it was held that, there is non-compliance of the provisions under Order V, Rule 15 of the Code. 17. In Sharma R.K. and others v. Ashok Nagar Welfare Association and Co. [AIR 2001 Delhi 272], another decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held that, Order V, Rule 15 of the Code empowers the process server to serve the summons on any adult member of the family, provided that the defendant is absent from his residence when service of summons is sought to be effected and there is no likelihood of he being found at the residence within a reasonable time and he has no agent empowered to accept service. On the facts of the case on hand, the Division Bench noticed that, the process server did not even bother to make repeated efforts to effect personal service on the defendants. He even did not bother to record on the summons that there was no agent available. On the facts of the case on hand, the Division Bench noticed that, the process server did not even bother to make repeated efforts to effect personal service on the defendants. He even did not bother to record on the summons that there was no agent available. He also did not bother to state that persons receiving summons were adult male members of the family of the defendants. Apart from the above glaring omissions on the part of process server, there is one major glaring defect in the report on the summons, namely, noncompliance of the provisions of Order V, Rule 18 of the Code. The requirement of Order V, Rule 18 is that the serving officer shall endorse or annex to the original summons a report in all cases in which summons has been served under Rule 16 stating: (a) the time when the summons was served; (b) the manner in which summons was served; (c) the name and address of the person, if any, identifying the person served; and (d) name and address of witness, if any, witnessing the delivery or tender of the summons. The Division Bench noticed that, none of the above requirements, which are mandatory in nature, have been complied with. There is a salutary purpose behind meticulous compliance of the requirements, namely, to avoid fake persons being served as genuine ones, in the absence of proper identification. 18. In Meera v. Narayani Amma [20 TLJ 509], in the context of Order V, Rule 15 of the Code, as it stood prior to its amendment by Section 55 of Act 104 of 1976, the Travancore High Court held that, four conditions should be satisfied before a service of summons could be held to be valid under Order V, Rule 15 of the Code, namely, (i) the rule is applicable only where the defendant cannot be found after an honest endeavour by the process server to effect personal service of the summons; (ii) the rule can be resorted to only in the absence of an agent empowered to accept service of summons; (iii) the service would be futile unless made on an adult male member of the defendant's family; and (iv) such member of the family should be one residing with the defendant. It is only if the defendant could not be found, in spite of efforts made in that behalf by the process server, summons can be served on an adult member of his family, residing with him. 19. In Krishna Pillai v. Sahul Hameed [ 1953 KLT 802 ], in the context of Order V, Rule 15 of the Code, as it stood prior to its amendment by Section 55 of Act 104 of 1976, a Full Bench of the Travancore-Cochin High Court held that, under Order V, Rule 15 of the Code, it is only when the defendant cannot be found and has no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, that service may be made on any adult member of his family, who is residing with him. On the facts of the case on hand, the Full Bench noticed that, Sankara Pillai was living with his two other wives in Mangalavu Veedu, a mile away from Pallithottathu Veedu, where Narayani Pillai was living. PW4, the process server, does not say that he took the notice to Pallithottathu Veedu. The endorsement made by the process server does not show that the notice was served on Sankara Pillai at Pallithottathu Veedu. Neither does it show that any attempt was made by the process server to serve the notice personally on Narayani Pillai. There is also no evidence to show that it was because Narayani Pillai could not be found, that the notice was served on Sankara Pillai. Sankara Pillai was not an agent of Narayani Pillai, empowered to accept service of the notice on her behalf. In such circumstances, the Full Bench held that, the service of the notice on Sankara Pillai was not a valid service under Order V, Rule 15 of the Code. 20. In Thomas Joseph v. Catholic Syrian Bank [ 1998 (1) KLT 986 ], a decision relied on by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, a Division Bench of this Court held that, service of notice under Order V, Rule 15 of the Code can be effected only on an adult member of the family residing with the defendant. No matter how close a relative may be, notice to a particular defendant cannot be effected on such a family member, if he or she is not residing with him. 21. No matter how close a relative may be, notice to a particular defendant cannot be effected on such a family member, if he or she is not residing with him. 21. In Charanjit Singh Mann v. Neelam Mann [ AIR 2006 P&H 201 ], another decision relied on by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that, service can be made under Order V, Rule 15 of the Code on an adult member (male or female) residing with the defendant subject to fulfillment of two conditions, namely, (i) the party upon whom service is to be effected resides at that address; and (ii) there is no likelihood of the defendant being found within a reasonable time. The expression ‘reasonable time’ shall vary from case to case. There can, however, be no doubt that before effecting service on an adult member of a defendant's family, there has to be satisfaction regarding likelihood of his non-availability at his residence within a reasonable time. The Division Bench noticed that, testing the yardstick of ‘within reasonable time’ in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, it is not denied that; (i) the appellant is a permanent resident of Ambala Cantonment and summons were sent to him on that address only; (ii) the appellant was not found at his residence and his father informed the process server that the appellant had gone abroad after remarrying; (iii) the appellant's father did not disclose as to how soon the appellant would come back from abroad; and (iv) the appellant's father did not commit that he will definitely inform the appellant regarding filing of the appeal or the interim order passed by the court though he assured in that regard. In those facts and circumstances and having regard to the nature of litigation, the Division Bench concluded that, the summons could not have been served upon the appellant personally within a reasonable time, therefore, service of summons upon the appellant's father, who admittedly received the summons, squarely falls within the safeguards of Order V, Rule 15 of the Code and has to be treated as a valid service upon the appellant. 22. 22. In Abbas v. Moideen Kunhi and another [ 2014 (3) KHC 734 ] a Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a case in which summons was served on the father of the appellant-2nd defendant, an adult member of his family, in the residential address of 2nd defendant, only after getting reliable information that the 2nd defendant was working in Gulf countries and was not likely to be available within a reasonable time. The Division Bench noticed the law laid down in Thomas Joseph [ 1998 (1) KLT 986 ] that, requirement of law for service of summons is that attempt should be made to serve the notice personally on the defendant unless there is an agent empowered to accept service on his behalf. Where, however, summons is served on an adult member of the family, in the absence of the defendant, the process server has to take care and caution of noting down the name and details of the adult member of the family. On the facts of the case, the Division Bench noticed that, service was effected at the residential address itself, when the appellant-2nd defendant was admittedly abroad. The 2nd defendant has no case that, he was likely to be available in the address given, within a reasonable time. Moreover, it was the father of the 2nd defendant, an adult member of the family, who accepted the summons along with an assurance that he will inform the party. These matters find place in the report of the process server. In such circumstances, the Division Bench found no merits in the contention that, there should have been a further enquiry into the matter in order to declare the service on the 2nd defendant as proper, after which alone he could be set ex parte. 23. In Prakash Kunhipaily Paul v. Anila Mol Augustine and others [ 2018 (4) KHC 565 ], a decision relied on by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, a Division Bench of this Court held that, a bare reading of the provisions of Order V, Rule 15 of the Code indicate that, before serving summons on an adult member of the family of the defendant, all efforts should be made to serve summons on the defendant himself at his residential address. Possibility of his presence at his residence within a reasonable time need to be ascertained. Possibility of his presence at his residence within a reasonable time need to be ascertained. It shall be ensured that there is no likelihood of the defendant being found at the residence within a reasonable time. It shall also be ensured that the defendant has not empowered any agent to accept the summons on his behalf. It is also necessary to ensure that the adult member of the family of the defendant is a person residing with the defendant. On a conjoint reading of the provisions contained in Rules 9 to 30 of Order V of the Code, dealing with service of summons, the Division Bench found that service of summons on an adult member of the family of the defendant, which is contemplated under Order V, Rule 15 of the Code, is personal service of the summons by the process server of the court. Service of the summons, which was sent to the defendant by registered post, on an adult member of the family of the defendant, cannot be treated as valid service of the summons on the defendant. 24. In Mohammed Shameer v. T.P. Abdul Majeed [ 2022 (2) KHC 642 ] a Division Bench of this Court, in which two among us [Anil K. Narendran and P.G. Ajithkumar, JJ] are parties, held that Order V, Rule 15 of the Code allows service of summons on an adult member of the defendant's family, who is residing in the same house, if there is no likelihood of the defendant being found at the residence within a reasonable time. In order to resort Order V, Rule 15, it is mandatory that the defendant and such adult member are residing at the same address. In the case on hand, the Division Bench found that, admittedly, the appellant-defendant has been residing abroad, although his permanent residence is the address given in the plaint. Therefore, the refusal by the mother of the appellant to receive the summons or attest the affixture would not satisfy the requirements of Order V, Rule 15 of the Code. 25. In the case on hand, the Division Bench found that, admittedly, the appellant-defendant has been residing abroad, although his permanent residence is the address given in the plaint. Therefore, the refusal by the mother of the appellant to receive the summons or attest the affixture would not satisfy the requirements of Order V, Rule 15 of the Code. 25. As per Order V, Rule 16 of the Code, where the serving officer delivers or tenders a copy of the summons to the defendant personally, or to an agent or other person on his behalf, he shall require the signature of the person to whom the copy is so delivered or tendered to an acknowledgement of service endorsed on the original summons. As per Rule 18, the serving officer shall, in all cases in which the summons has been served under Rule 16, endorse or annex, or cause to be endorsed or annexed, on or to the original summons, a return stating the time when and the manner in which the summons was served, and the name and address of the person (if any) identifying the person served and witnessing the delivery or tender of the summons. 26. As per Order V, Rule 17 of the Code, where the defendant or his agent or such other person as aforesaid 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 at the time when service is sought to be effected on him at his residence and there is no likelihood of his being found at the residence within a reasonable time and there is no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, nor any other person on whom service can be made, 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, and shall then return the original to the court from which it was issued, with a report endorsed thereon or annexed thereto stating that he has so affixed the copy, the circumstances under which he did so, and the name and address of the person (if any) by whom the house was identified and in whose presence the copy was affixed. 27. 27. As per Order V, Rule 19 of the Code, where a summons is returned under Rule 17, the court shall, if the return under that rule has not been verified by the affidavit of the serving officer, and may, if it has been so verified, examine the serving officer on oath, or cause him to be so examined by another court, touching his proceedings, and may make such further enquiry in the matter as it thinks fit; and shall either declare that the summons has been duly served or order such service as it thinks fit. 28. The provisions under Order V, Rule 17 of the Code is attracted where the defendant or his agent or such other person as aforesaid refuses to sign the acknowledgement, or where, after using all due and reasonable diligence, the serving officer cannot find the defendant who is absent from his residence at the time when service is sought to be effected on him at his residence and there is no likelihood of he being found at the residence within a reasonable time and there is no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, nor any other person on whom service can be made. On the other hand, the provisions under Order V, Rule 15 is attracted where an adult member of the defendant’s family, who is residing with the defendant, is available at his residence. 29. Order V, Rule 20 of the Code deals with substituted service. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 20, where the court is satisfied that there is reason to believe that 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, the court shall order the summons to be served 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 is known to have last resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain, or in such other manner as the court thinks fit. Sub-rule (1A) of Rule 20 provides the manner in which paper publication has to be effected. Sub-rule (1A) of Rule 20 provides the manner in which paper publication has to be effected. As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 20, service substituted by order of the court shall be effectual as if it had been made on the defendant personally. As per sub-rule (3) of Rule 20, where service is substituted by order of the court, the court shall fix such time for the appearance of the defendant as the case may require. 30. A reading of the provisions under Order V, Rule 20 of the Code make it explicitly clear that, summons on the defendant by substituted service can be effected only on the orders of the court. For passing such an order, the court has to record its satisfaction, based on the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the application for taking out summons by substituted service or the materials on record, that there is reason to believe that 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. 31. In Mohammed Shameer [ 2022 (2) KHC 642 ] a Division Bench of this Court held that, if summons is not able to be served by any other mode, then only the provisions of Order V, Rule 20 of the Code can be invoked and substituted service can be effected. Order V, Rule 20 obliges the court to satisfy itself before ordering substituted service that the defendant is keeping out of the way to avoid service or that for any other reason service cannot be effected in the ordinary way. Unless such conditions exist, an order passed under the said rule may be vitiated by material irregularity. 32. Order V, Rule 20 obliges the court to satisfy itself before ordering substituted service that the defendant is keeping out of the way to avoid service or that for any other reason service cannot be effected in the ordinary way. Unless such conditions exist, an order passed under the said rule may be vitiated by material irregularity. 32. In Arundas [ 2017 (4) KLT 1060 ] one of the contentions before the Division Bench of this Court was that, even in cases where the defendant is unavailable, the court is enjoined, while acting under the provisions of Order V, Rule 15 of the Code, to enter a finding that there is no likelihood of the defendant being found at his address within a reasonable time and that, he has no agent empowered to accept service of summons, and it is only thereafter the court can issue orders under the provisions of Order V, Rule 15 of the Code to serve notice on an adult member. The Division Bench noticed that, the provisions under Order V, Rule 15 of the Code empowers service of summons on an adult member of the family of the defendant in the circumstances detailed therein. On the question as to whether the process server could have served summons on the adult member of the defendant’s family, without a specific order to that effect being issued by the court, the Division Bench held that, on a purposive interpretative reading of the provisions of Order V Rule 15 of the Code, service of summons on a defendant can be effected by service on an adult member of his family, who is residing with him, only if it is specifically so ordered by the court. The court below had not issued such specific orders while the process server had attempted to serve summons on the appellant. Since the process server had served summons on the father of the appellant-defendant without the orders of the court and without the court having concluded prior that the defendant cannot be found at his residence within a reasonable time, it cannot be held that the appellant defendant has been served summons properly by the court in the suit. Paragraph 20 of the said decision reads thus; “20. We have examined these submissions with some interest. Paragraph 20 of the said decision reads thus; “20. We have examined these submissions with some interest. There is no doubt that Order V Rule 15 of the CPC empowers service of summons on an adult member of the family of the defendant in the circumstances detailed therein. However, the question that begs an answer here is whether the process server could have served the notice on an adult member without a specific order to that effect being issued by the court below. We find force in the submissions of the learned counsel that this could not have been so and that such service cannot be considered to be a valid service. We find favour to hold from a purposive interpretative reading of the provisions of Order V Rule 15 that service of notice on a defendant can be done by service on an adult member of his family, who is residing with him, only if it is specifically so ordered by the court below. In the case at hand, the court below had not issued such specific orders while the process server had attempted to serve notice on the appellant. He had served it on the father of the appellant without the orders of the court and without the court having concluded prior that the defendant cannot be found at his residence within a reasonable time. We, therefore, cannot find that the appellant has been served summons properly by the court below in the suit proceedings.” (underline supplied) 33. As already noticed hereinbefore, the process server can effect service of summons under Order V, Rule 15 of the Code, on any adult member of the family, whether male or female, who is residing with him, in case the defendant who has no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, is absent from his residence at the time when the service of summons is sought to be effected on him at his residence, and the process server is satisfied that there is no likelihood of the defendant being found at his residence within a reasonable time. For the process server to effect service of notice under Order V, Rule 15 of the Code, on any adult member of the defendant’s family, who is residing with the defendant, no specific prior orders from the court is required, as in the case of service of summons on the defendant by substituted service under Order V, Rule 20 of the Code. 34. The requirement of Order V, Rule 15 is that, in the affidavit filed in Form No.11 to Appendix B of the Code, the process server has to enter fully and exactly the manner in which process was served, with special reference to Order V, Rule 15 of the Code, and that, on enquiry with the adult member of the defendant’s family, who is residing with the defendant, he is satisfied that there is no likelihood of the defendant being found at the residence within a reasonable time. The expression ‘reasonable time’ shall vary from case to case. The process server shall ascertain the possibility of the presence of the defendant at his residence within a reasonable time, from an adult member of his family, who is residing with him. 35. For effecting service of summons on an adult member of the defendant’s family, who is residing with him at his residence, the process server has to record his satisfaction that, there is no likelihood of the defendant being found at his residence within a reasonable time and that he has no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf. The service of summons contemplated under Order V, Rule 15 of the Code is personal service of the summons by the process server of the court. The return of summons should accompany the affidavit of the process server in Form 11 of Appendix B to the Code, in which he has to enter fully and exactly the manner in which process was served, with special reference to Order V, Rule 15 of the Code. The return of summons shall be verified by the affidavit of the serving officer and the Central or Deputy Nazir shall administer the oath or take the affirmation of the process server, as provided under sub-rule (1) of Rule 80 of the Civil Rules of Practice, Kerala. The return of summons shall be verified by the affidavit of the serving officer and the Central or Deputy Nazir shall administer the oath or take the affirmation of the process server, as provided under sub-rule (1) of Rule 80 of the Civil Rules of Practice, Kerala. The process server has to record his satisfaction that, there is no likelihood of the defendant being found at his residence within a reasonable time, that he no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, and that the summons is served on an adult member of the defendant’s family, who is residing with him at his residence. 36. Therefore, we hold that, for the process server to effect service of summons under Order V, Rule 15 of the Code, on any adult member of the defendant’s family, whether male or female, who is residing with him, no specific orders from the court is required, authorising him to effect service of summons under Rule 15, as in the case of service of summons on the defendant by substituted service under Order V, Rule 20 of the Code. It is also not the requirement of Order V, Rule 15 that, prior to the process server effecting service of summons on any adult member of the defendant's family under Rule 15, the court has to conclude that the defendant cannot be found at his residence within a reasonable time. The requirement for effecting service of summons on any adult member of the defendant’s family under Order V, Rule 15 is that, in the affidavit filed in Form No.11 to Appendix B of the Code, the process server has to enter fully and exactly the manner in which process was served, with special reference to Order V, Rule 15 of the Code, and that, on enquiry with an adult member of the defendant’s family, who is residing with him, the process server is satisfied that there is no likelihood of the defendant being found at his residence within a reasonable time, who has no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf. Before acting upon the return of summons and the affidavit filed in Form No.11 to Appendix B of the Code, read with Rule 80 of the Civil Rules of Practice, Kerala, the court has to ensure that the process server effected service of summons on an adult member of the defendant’s family, strictly in compliance with the provisions under Order V, Rule 15 of the Code. 37. Therefore, we overrule the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in Arundas v. Priji [ 2017 (4) KLT 1060 ] that service of summons on the defendant can be effected under Order V, Rule 15 of the Code only if it is specifically so ordered by the court and without the court having concluded 21-06-2022 /True Copy/Assistant Registrar prior to service of summons that the defendant cannot be found at his residence within a reasonable time. The reference to the Full Bench is answered as above. Registry to list this appeal before the Bench as per roster.