Report No. 163
Q.9. Order 5, rules 9. 9A, 19A, 21, 24 and 25 (Modes of service of summons): Clause 15(v) to clause (ix).
The Code (in Order 5, rules 9, 19A, 21, 24, 25, etc.) at present contemplates service of summons-
(1) through proper officer of the court, and
(2) also by registered post (unless the court dispenses with it).
Instead of this scheme, the amendment proposes that the service shall be under a different scheme, whose main features are as under:
(a) The court shall hand over the summons to the plaintiff or his agent, who shall arrange to serve it within two days in the manner provided in (b) below;
[For the consequences of default, see Q.20, below, see also Q.13, below].
(b) The plaintiff (or his agent) will serve the summons on the defendant by
(i) registered post; or
(ii) speed post; or
(iii) approved courier service; or
(iv) fax message; or
(v) Electronic mail service; or
(vi) other means prescribed by the High Court by rules.
[The actual mode to be adopted/out of (i) to (vi) above/will be specified by the court].
(c) In addition/the court may also direct service through the proper officer of the court.
Would you prefer the above scheme which seeks not only to take advantage of modern technological innovations but also provide for modes of service which are more abuse-proof?
Would you agree that both the modes of service (b) and (c) above should be mandatory?