PRIYANKA KUMARI Vs. SHAILENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per the office report the notice issued to the sole respondent has returned with the remarks "unclaimed". As it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Another, (1999) 7 Supreme Court Cases 510 that when notice is returned as 'unclaimed', it shall be deemed to be duly served upon the addressee and it is a proper service of notice. In the case of Ajeet Seeds Limited Vs. K. Gopala Krishnaiah (2014)12 SCC 685 (2014), the Hon'ble Court while interpreting Sec. 27 of General Clauses Act 1897 and also Sec. 114 of Evidence Act 1872 held as under :-

(2.) It has been observed that Registry mentions in the office report that where the notice is returned as 'refusal', is complete/proper service, whereas when it is returned as 'unclaimed', is not proper service/incomplete service.

(3.) In the opinion of this Court, it is not proper and correct. The word 'refusal' can be interpreted in synonymous to the word "unclaimed". As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decisions, when a notice is served to the proper address of the addressee, it shall be deemed to be served unless contrary is proved. Thus, when the notice is returned as unclaimed, it shall be deemed to be served and it is proper service. Therefore, service of notice to the sole respondent which has returned as unclaimed is considered as deemed to be served but none has entered appearance.