BALURAM RAMKISSEN Vs. BAI PANNABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case a question has arisen whether the service of the summons upon the first defendant is sufficiently proved.

(2.) It appears the summons was sent by registered post addressed to the first defendant at Navalgarh in the State of Jaipur, and purports to have been sent in accordance with the provisions of Order V, Rule 25, of the new Code. The cover has been returned with an endorsement in the vernacular which has been translated as follows:--"Refused to take. The handwriting of Chunilal, postman." Now, the question as to whether this is a good service or not is not altogether without authority. In Jagannath Brakhbhau V/s. J. E. Sassoon (1893) I.L.R. 18 Bom. 606, a decision of Sir Charles Sargent and Mr. Justice Bayley, it was held, under similar circumstances, where a postal packet was returned endorsed "refused," that the service was bad, and the Small Cause Court in accepting it as good service had acted with material irregularity. At first sight that case appears to be directly in point. But it has been urged by Mr. Kanga that in two important respects it differs from the present case. In the first place the defendant in that case was residing in British territory, and the Code did not provide for service on him by registered post, and, secondly, that the decision was prior to the last General Clauses Act. I, therefore, think I am entitled to deal with this case without being bound or precluded by this decision.

(3.) The next decision upon the point is Aga Gulam Husain V/s. A. D. Sassoon (1897) I.L.R. 21 Bom. 412 the important passage in the case being at page 418. In that case "Mr. Justice Candy held that the summons was duly served, although the postal cover was returned as "refused." Then he proceeds to say that there was in addition indirect evidence of the service of the summons or at any rate of the knowledge of the defendant of the suit.