R.Sakthivel Vs K.S.Karthigeyan — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

R.Sakthivel Vs K.S.Karthigeyan — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No direction for substituted service issued; petitioner permitted to file an appropriate application before the trial court seeking substituted service, to be considered by the trial court on its own merits without being influenced by this order. No costs awarded.

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should direct the trial court to order substituted service of summons on the respondent/defendant in O.S. No. 68 of 2025, given repeated return of summonses.

Court's answer

A court can order substituted service only if it is satisfied that the defendant is evading service of notice; a petitioner who believes there is evasion must move the trial court with an appropriate application and convince it of the fact of evasion.

Ratio / Principle

This Court declined to issue any positive direction to the trial court; it permitted the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the trial court seeking substituted service, which shall be considered on its own merits without being influenced by anything said in this order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (S. Sounthar, J.), CRP No. 830 of 2026, decided 19-02-2026: A civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution sought a direction to the Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Chengalpattu to order substituted service of summons on the defendant in O.S. No. 68 of 2025 (a suit for specific performance), the summons having been taken more than three times and each time returned endorsed "no such person", "left", "addressee vacated". Held: substituted service can be ordered only where the court is satisfied that the defendant is evading service of notice; a petitioner who believes the defendant is evading notice must file an appropriate application before the trial court and convince it of the evasion. Declining to issue any positive direction, the Court permitted the petitioner to file such an application and observed that the trial court shall consider it on its own merits without being influenced by anything said in this order. Petition disposed of with this observation; no costs.

CRP No. 830 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19-02-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

CRP No. 830 of 2026

R.Sakthivel.

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

K.S.Karthigeyan

..Respondent(s)

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India praying to direct the learned Trial Court to order the substitute service thereby enable the petitioner/plaintiff to complete service to the respondent/defendant in OS No.68 of 2025 on the file of the Learned Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) at Chengalpattu.

For Petitioner(s): M/s.M.Abbiraami for Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar

ORDER

The civil revision petition is filed seeking a direction to the trial court to

order substituted service to the defendant in OS.No.68 of 2025 on the file of Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Chengalpattu.

The petitioner herein filed a suit for specific performance against the

respondent. Even though summons have been taken to respondent/defendant for

more than three times, at all occasions the summons have been returned with an endorsement “no such person”,“ left”, “addressee vacated”. According to the

Page1 of 3

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP No. 830 of 2026

learned counsel for the petitioner, the trial court is ordering fresh notice to respondent again and again. Therefore, the trial court may be directed to permit the petitioner to serve respondent through substituted service.

The court can order substituted service only if it is satisfied that the defendant is evading service of notice. If the petitioner is of the opinion that the defendant is evading service, it is for him to file an appropriate application before the trial court and convince the court about the fact of evasion by the respondent. Therefore, this court is not inclined to issue any positive direction to the trial court. However, the petitioner is permitted to file appropriate application before the trial court seeking substituted service. If any such application is filed, the same shall be considered by the trial court on its own merits without being influenced by anything said in this order.

4.With this observation, the civil revision petition stands disposed. No

costs.

19-02-2026

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

nr

To

The Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Chengalpattu

__________ Page2 of 3

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP No. 830 of 2026

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

NR

CRP No. 830 of 2026

19-02-2026

__________ Page3 of 3

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis