Purkhu @ Purak Chand (deceased) through LRs vs. Megh Singh (deceased) through LRs. CMP No. 4146 of 2026 in RSA No. 567 of 2008 Reserved on 13.07.2026 17.07.2026 Present: Ms Kusum Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellants/applicants. Respondent No.1(a) stated to have expired. Name of respondent No.2 stands deleted vide order dated 21.12.2024. Ms Tamanna Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant/respondent in CMP No. 13336 of 2025. The appellants/applicants have filed the present application for the service of the respondent Nos. 1(a)(i), 1(a)(ii) by way of an affixation on the last known address. It has been asserted that respondent no. 1 (a) Tedhi Singh has died on 11.02.2025, and an application for bringing on record his legal representatives was filed. The Court issued the notices to the legal representatives. The process fee was filed. The summons issued to the legal representative has been returned unserved. Fresh process fee was filed, but it was returned by the Registry with the remarks that the correct address be filed. The reports are incorrect. The address verified by Pradhan was mentioned in the application. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and the proposed legal representatives be summoned by way of affixation on the last known address. 2. I have heard Ms Kusum Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellants/applicants and Ms. Tamanna Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Ms Kusum Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellants/applicants, submitted that the applicant had filed the correct address, but the service could not be effected because of the incorrect report. The appellants/applicants do not have any other address available with them. Therefore, she prayed that the present application be allowed and the proposed LRs be served by way of affixation on the last known address. 4. Ms Tamanna Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the requirement of Order 5 Rule 20 of CPC has not been satisfied in the present case. Therefore, she prayed that the present application be dismissed. 5. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 6. A perusal of the summons shows that the notice issued to respondent no. 1 (a)(i) Rukmani Devi was returned with a report that Rukmani Devi was not residing in the village Bishtbehar for a long time and she was residing in her parental home at Tandari. Therefore, the notice could not be served. An endorsement was made, try again and thereafter, the process server visited Village Tandari and asked Rukmani Devi to accept the notice, but she refused to accept the notice. Hence, the notice was returned unserved. The notice issued to the respondent number 1(a)(ii) Chandan Singh was returned with a report that Chandan Singh was a permanent resident of Village Bishatbehar. However, his house was locked. He occasionally visited his house, and his whereabouts were unknown. 7. Order 5 Rule 17 of the CPC reads that when the defendant refuses to sign the acknowledgment or where the serving officer, after due and reasonable diligence cannot find the defendant, who is absent from his residence at the time when the service is sought to be effected on him and there is no likelihood of his being found at the residence within a reasonable time, the serving officer shall affix a copy of the summon on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the defendant ordinarily resides or carries on the business. In the present case, Rukmani Devi had refused to sign the acknowledgment after the notice was tendered to her. Therefore, the requirement under Order 5 Rule 17 that the defendant refuses to sign the acknowledgment was duly satisfied. Similarly, Chandan Singh was found absent from his home at the time of delivery of the notice, and it was reported that he occasionally visited the house. Therefore, he was not available at the address furnished by the applicant, and there was no likelihood of his being found at the residence within a reasonable time. Thus, the essential condition of Order 5 Rule 17 of CPC was satisfied in the case of Chandan Singh as well. 8. Therefore, the present application is allowed, and Rukmani Devi is ordered to be served by way of affixation in Village Tandari, and Chandan Singh is ordered to be served by way of affixation in Village Bishtbehar. 9. The present application stands disposed of. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 17th July, 2026 (Nikita)