Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Krishnaiah Krishnsiah   28 August 2021

Service of summons

Dear experts
In a civil case ,summons sent by registered post with acknowledgment due and served on the defendant but not returned acknowledgement card but postal track consignment showing that as item delivery confimed.
Why some courts are not considering as sufficient service?
Even WhatsApp, e mail also deemed to be sufficient service
Kindly advice on this dear experts.


Learning

 6 Replies

Dr J C Vashista (Advocate)     28 August 2021

Tracking report of postal authorities with a certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is termed as " proper service"

Advocate Bhartesh goyal (advocate)     28 August 2021

Yes, Courts consider  proper service on basis of tracking report .

G.L.N. Prasad (Retired employee.)     28 August 2021

You can also seek such a certified copy from the sending post office and it shall be given under RTI Act with Rs.10/- immediately.

Information solicited:

1. Please provide me delivery status for the Regd Post No................booked at...............post office.

The sending post office can also give a certificate at your request on receipt of a letter from you.

P. Venu (Advocate)     28 August 2021

You may move the superior Court or take up the issue administratively with the District/High Court.

Krishnaiah Krishnsiah   29 August 2021

Dear experts Surprisingly, the court is asking for citations regarding that postal tracking consignment is sufficient service.

P. Venu (Advocate)     31 August 2021

It is unlikely that there could be a citation on this issue; I could not come across any. Moreover, the insistence of the Court has no basis in law or in principle. The provisions of Order V of the CPC does not mandate the return of the acknowledgment as a proof of service. The procedure that is prevalent in many a court is a matter of habit and usage than a rule of practice. All the more, the approach of the Court in keeping pace with the changing times falls foul of the doctrine of updating construction. The doctrine is premised on the principle that the provisions in the statute are to be interpreted and constructed with reference to its contemporary understanding and the construction should be continuously updated to allow for changes. In this context, the Apex Court had held (1983) 1 SCC 228: "We cannot allow the dead hand of the past to stifle the growth of the living present. Law cannot stand still. It must change with the changing social concepts and values. If the bark that protects the tree fails to grow and expand along with the tree, it will either choke the tree or if it a living tree, it will shed the bark and grow a living bark for itself" "
2 Like

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register