P.V.MUHAMMED Vs. RAJEEV MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice issued to respondents 1 and 2, returned with an endorsement "no such addressee".

(2.) The address of the respondents shown in the cause title of this original petition reads thus;

(3.) In Sali Mohan v. Kolazhi Grama Panchayath, Thrissur and Others [2015 (4) KHC 261] this Court held that a postal article with incomplete or indefinite address, without specifying some definite place for O.P.(C)No.1830 of 2019 delivery, such as a particular house or building, or a particular post box, or a particular number in a street, along with the name of the locality where the addressee resides or carries on business or employed, cannot be termed as one 'properly addressed' in order to draw a presumption as to service of document by post, under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 or Section 26 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act, 1125, or under Section 16 or Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872. This Court held further that, for drawing a presumption under the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 51 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 that the notice had been duly served on the respondent, one of the essential circumstances is that the notice was 'properly addressed'.