Rules 2 to 5 of Order IX establish provisions for situations where the summons is not served to the defendant. One of the fundamental principles of procedural law is that every party must be afforded a fair opportunity to present their case.

Therefore, it is obligatory to provide a notice of the legal proceedings initiated against the defendant. Serving the summons to the defendant is a mandatory requirement and acts as a condition precedent.

If the summons is not served or if it does not allow the defendant sufficient time to effectively present their case, a decree cannot be passed against them, as established in the case of Begum Para v. Luiza Matilda Fernandes.

Rule 2 of Order IX also states that if the plaintiff fails to pay the costs for serving the summons to the defendant, the suit may be dismissed. However, if the defendant appears on the day of the hearing, either in person or through their legal representative, the dismissal cannot be granted solely based on the plaintiff’s failure to pay costs.

In such cases, the plaintiff is entitled to file a fresh suit. Furthermore, if the court is satisfied that there was a reasonable explanation for the failure to pay costs, it may set aside the dismissal order.

If the summons is returned unserved and the plaintiff does not apply for fresh summons within 7 days from the date of return, as indicated by the defendant or any of the defendants, the court can dismiss the suit against the defendant(s).

If it is not proven that the summons was duly served to the defendant, the court may direct the issuance of a fresh summons for service.

If the service of the summons is proven but the time provided in the summons is insufficient for the defendant to respond on the designated day, the court can postpone the hearing to a future date and provide notice to the defendant.