IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 33977 of 2007(T) -------------------------- OS.497/2007 of I ADDL.M.C.,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------------- MALAYALA MANORAMA COMPANY LIMITED, P.B.NO.4278, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682 036, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (MARKETING), OOMMEN KURIEN. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT: ----------------------- THRIKKANARVATTOM SAMUDAYA SEVA SANGHOM, AYYAPPANKAVU, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 014. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VENUGOPALAN SRI.N.V.RAMACHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.33977/2007 T APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM IN O.S.NO.497/2007 TO THE MANAGER (MARKETING) OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF MEMO SUBMITTED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM, ON 18/10/2007 IN O.S.497/2007. EXT.P3: COPY OF STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER ON 12/09/2007 IN O.S.497/2007. EXT.P4: COPY OF EXTRACT OF ORDER DTD. 13/11/2007 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM IN O.S.NO.497/2007. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 33977 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P4. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows. By my order in WPC No. 29086/07, I directed the Additional Munsiff, Ernakulam, to accept the draft paper publication, fix the hearing date and find out whether it is in order and then direct the party to publish the same in the daily, in which it is ordered. When that was attempted to be carried out in the paper in which it was ordered to be published namely “Malayala Manorama” they requested that a copy of the order is necessary for the purpose of effecting publication. 2. The approach of the paper authorities cannot be found fault with for the reason that they require an order of the court for publishing notice in the paper. I feel this is a case where the learned Munsiff is too technical and attempting to interpret everything technically, which result in injustice to the parties concerned. Such conduct of the officer cannot be appreciated at all. But it is a fact that there is different forms of making paper publications. For example, in Malabar area no particular order is issued but when the court orders publication in paper with a hearing date, it is carried out. I am informed that in this part of area the office used to give WPC NO 33977/07 2 a copy of the order so that the paper authorities can rely upon that for publication. So it cannot be found fault with. Now the question that arises for consideration is about the mode that can be adopted. 3. Order V Rule 20 permits the court to effect substituted services. Order XX Rule 2 makes it very clear that substituted services amounts to just like the personal services on the defendant. Order V Rule 23 mandates that where service is substituted by the order of the court, the court shall fix such time for the appearance of the defendant, as the case may require. Therefore, it is imperative that a judicial order is passed regarding the date of appearance of the party. In Order V Rule 1(3) read with Section 60 of the Civil Rules of Practice makes it clear that every warrant shall be signed by the Judge or the Chief Ministerial Officer. All other process may be signed by the Central Nazar or Deputy Nazar. So substituted service is also a process which is to be done and it is sufficient if the Central Nazar or Deputy Nazar signs the paper publication provided, the court has fixed the date. Therefore, I feel the following practice can be adopted when the application for substituted services is filed, the court shall allow the same, fix the date of appearance of the party and then direct the party, who has applied to produce a draft publication with the date mentioned by the court. The said draft with a copy can be produced before the Central Nazar or Deputy Nazar, as the case may be. After verifying the correctness of the same, they can put their signature, affix the WPC NO 33977/07 3 seal and give the original back to the Advocate who produced the same so that it can be produced before the authorities for paper publication. If this is done, the apprehension raised by the learned Munsiff that his signature will go to the paper authorities can be prevented as well. 4. Now in this case, I direct the court to pass a fresh order permitting substituted services after fixing the date of appearance. After the same, the party is directed to produce the draft publication with the date before the Central Nazar who will see the correctness of the same, put the signature, affix the seal and then give it to the Advocate who has produced the same so as to produce it before the paper authorities/paper publication. In so far as Ext.P4 is concerned, it is not warranted and necessary. Therefore it is quashed. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps WPC NO 33977/07 4