Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a civil suit filed by a landlord, which resulted in an ex-parte decree against the defendants. The appellants, Basant Singh and another, sought to set aside the decree, claiming improper service of summons. The Trial Court had issued summons by both ordinary and registered post, but the appellants contended that the substituted service was not valid as it was published in a different newspaper than ordered. The court noted that both newspapers were widely circulated, and the change did not materially affect the service. The appellants were required to prove that they were not duly served, but they failed to provide sufficient evidence. The court emphasized that the presumption of service under the Code of Civil Procedure and the General Clauses Act was not rebutted by the appellants. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no costs awarded.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Service of Notice - Validity of Service by Registered Post - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 5, Rule 19A; General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 27 - The court held that service of notice by registered post with acknowledgement due is sufficient, and the change of publication from 'Dainik Bhaskar' to 'Aacharan' did not invalidate the service. The defendants failed to rebut the presumption of service, and the appeal was dismissed (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the service of notice sent by registered post with acknowledgement card can be accepted as sufficient notice.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the service of notice by registered post was valid and the appellants failed to rebut the presumption of service. The court found no merit in the appeal and imposed no costs.
Law Points
- Service of notice
- registered post
- substituted service
- ex-parte decree
- Code of Civil Procedure
- General Clauses Act
