Service of notices sent properly addressed, prepaid and by registered post would be deemed to be proper service.
High Court of Rajasthan
Megha Insulation Private Limited and Ors. v. J.K. White Cement Work Gotan
17.10.2016
Civil
Unless proved contrary, service of notices sent properly addressed, prepaid and by registered post would be deemed to be proper service.
Instant appeal filed by Appellants aggrieved against order passed by Additional District Judge, whereby, application filed by Appellants under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC seeking setting aside of ex parte decree has been dismissed. Appellant claimed that, summons sent through registered post acknowledgment due were not served on Appellants and, in absence of service of summons, suit could not have proceeded and be decreed ex parte.
Provisions of Order V, Rule 9 CPC which were inserted vide amendment in year 1999 and were again substituted in the year 2002, specifically provides that service of summons may be made by delivering a copy by registered post acknowledgment due addressed to the defendant provided that service of summons under the said sub-rule shall be made at the expenses of the plaintiff. Sub-rule (4) further provides that where a defendant resides outside jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit is instituted, and the Court directs that service of summons on that defendant may be made by such mode of service of as is referred to in sub-rule (3), the provisions of Rule 21 shall not apply and sub-rule (5) clearly envisages that when an acknowledgment or any other receipt purporting to be signed by the defendant or his agent is received by the Court, Court issuing summons shall declare that the summons had been duly served on the defendant. The proviso to sub-rule (5) provides that service would be deemed sufficient where the summons were properly addressed, prepaid and duly sent by registered post acknowledgment due, notwithstanding the fact that the acknowledgment having been lost or mislaid or has not been received by the Court within thirty days from the date of issue of summons.
Registered post summons were sent through Court only and acknowledgment receipts were also received at Court and as noticed by trial court in order impugned, also bears the cause title, number of the case and the next date fixed in the matter. Both acknowledgments bear signatures of the receiver of the registered article, in view thereof, the trial court was justified in concluding that, summons of the suit were duly served on Defendants and thereafter ordered for proceeding ex parte and after recording ex parte evidence, partly decreed the suit.
Once Appellants filed application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC on ground that summons were not duly served on them and/or disputing the signatures on A.D. receipts, entire burden lay on Appellants to prove said stand taken by it regarding service. While dismissing instant appeal, Court held that, unless contrary was proved by Appellants in present case, very fact that the notices were sent properly addressed, prepaid and by registered post, the service on the appellants would be deemed to be proper service.
Provisions of Order V, Rule 9 CPC which were inserted vide amendment in year 1999 and were again substituted in the year 2002, specifically provides that service of summons may be made by delivering a copy by registered post acknowledgment due addressed to the defendant provided that service of summons under the said sub-rule shall be made at the expenses of the plaintiff. Sub-rule (4) further provides that where a defendant resides outside jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit is instituted, and the Court directs that service of summons on that defendant may be made by such mode of service of as is referred to in sub-rule (3), the provisions of Rule 21 shall not apply and sub-rule (5) clearly envisages that when an acknowledgment or any other receipt purporting to be signed by the defendant or his agent is received by the Court, Court issuing summons shall declare that the summons had been duly served on the defendant. The proviso to sub-rule (5) provides that service would be deemed sufficient where the summons were properly addressed, prepaid and duly sent by registered post acknowledgment due, notwithstanding the fact that the acknowledgment having been lost or mislaid or has not been received by the Court within thirty days from the date of issue of summons.
Registered post summons were sent through Court only and acknowledgment receipts were also received at Court and as noticed by trial court in order impugned, also bears the cause title, number of the case and the next date fixed in the matter. Both acknowledgments bear signatures of the receiver of the registered article, in view thereof, the trial court was justified in concluding that, summons of the suit were duly served on Defendants and thereafter ordered for proceeding ex parte and after recording ex parte evidence, partly decreed the suit.
Once Appellants filed application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC on ground that summons were not duly served on them and/or disputing the signatures on A.D. receipts, entire burden lay on Appellants to prove said stand taken by it regarding service. While dismissing instant appeal, Court held that, unless contrary was proved by Appellants in present case, very fact that the notices were sent properly addressed, prepaid and by registered post, the service on the appellants would be deemed to be proper service.
Comments
Post a Comment