021 RULE 1& 2 CPC

no through telephonecally served the notice is not a valid notice and it is a settle law if a party went to appeal notice always  serve to the contesting party who has interest on case lower court lawyer lawyer has no conser so far in appeal unless and unttil he has again file a fresh vakalatnama in appeal DH. canot ask for interest for delayed period

ashutosh( adv)

There needs to be some proof for service. RPAD is the normal course of service other than process through court.

As per  sub-rule (2)(O XXI  R 1) the judgment-debtor is not absolved of the obligation of informing the decree-holder by written notice even in respect of deposit in court either directly or by registered post. The purpose of addition of the expression "either through court directly or by registered post acknowledgment due" is that the judgment-debtor should not only give notice of payment but he must ensure that the decree-holder has been served with the notice. If the judgment debtor intends that the running of interest should cease then he must intimate in writing and ensure that it is served on the decree-holder. Sub-rules (4) and (5) added in 1976 to protect the judgment-debtor provide for cessation of interest from the date of deposit or payment. But the cessation of interest under sub-rule (4) takes place not by payment alone but from the date of service of the notice referred to in sub-rule (2).

In the referred case , a telphonic notice that too, to the lawyer who held the brief in the trial court is no notice at all.

I would suggest for further reading   of Supreme Court in the matter of

Mathunni Mathai v Hindustan Organics Ltd. AIR 1995 SC 1572