Gujarat High Court
Pipleshvar Diesel Service - Through ... vs Kotda Deyodar Gram on 27 February, 2013
Author: Vijay Manohar Sahai
Bench: Vijay Manohar Sahai
PIPLESHVAR DIESEL SERVICE - THROUGH PROPRIETOR....Applicant(s)V/SKOTDA DEYODAR GRAM PANCHAYAT C/CA/1089/2013 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1089 of 2013 In LETTERS PATENT APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) NO. 1589 of 2012 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8671 of 2011 With CIVIL APPLICATION (STAMP NUMBER) NO. 138 of 2013 In LETTERS PATENT APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) NO. 1589 of 2012 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH =========================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================================ PIPLESHVAR DIESEL SERVICE - THROUGH PROPRIETOR....Applicant(s) Versus KOTDA DEYODAR GRAM PANCHAYAT & 1....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: Mr Shalin N.Mehta, Sr.Advocate for Ms Vidhi J.Bhatt, ADVOCATE for the Applicant No. 1 RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2 UNSERVED-REFUSED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH Date : 27/02/2013 ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH) Heard learned senior counsel Mr.Shalin N.Mehta assisted by Ms.Vidhi J.Bhatt, learned advocate for the applicant.
Rule was issued on 4.2.2013 with permission for direct service upon the respondents. The affidavits of service is placed on record by the applicant. However, on verification of such affidavits, which are sworn on 13.2.2013 and 18.2.2013, it becomes clear that notice upon the respondent No.2 is received by the concerned Government department as rubber stamp of concerned department is endorsed on the copy of the notice, confirming that they have received the notice and the same fact has been disclosed on oath by one Ramesh Govindbhai Chavda in his affidavit dated 13.2.2013.
However, so far as notice upon respondent No.1 i.e. Kotda Deyodar Gram Panchayat is concerned, proprietor of applicant s firm, namely, Jagdish Jayantibhai Thakker has filed affidavit dated 18.2.2013 to the effect that respondent No.1 refused to accept the notice.
Though service on notices and appearances is being checked by the Registry. In the present case, it is necessary to consider the action taken by the applicant, because the learned senior counsel Mr.Shalin Mehta is pressing to consider such affidavit as proper proof of service. Therefore, it would be appropriate to recollect the statement in such affidavit, which reads as under:-
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE I, Jagdishbhai S/o.Jayantibhai Thakker residing at ____________________________ undersigned do hereby state on solemn affirmation as under:
1. That as per the order of the Hon ble Court I have served notice/injunction/stay to the respondent No. 1/refusal to accept notice and have obtained the signature on the original.
I am producing herewith the original copy duly signed by the parties.
2. What is stated above is true to my own knowledge.
Solemnly affirmed at Ahmedabad on this 18 day of Feb 2013.
Sd/-
____________ (DEPONENT) Identified by me sd/-
Advocate Therefore, learned senior counsel Mr.Shalin Mehta submits that such affidavit is as per practice and proforma of Affidavit of Service to be filed before the High Court, and the same is to be treated as proper proof of service. However, it becomes clear that there is no application of mind either at the time of swearing such affidavit or at the time of filing it because in such affidavit, applicant has stated that - I am producing herewith original copy duly signed by the parties . Though there is written endorsement in the same affidavit that respondent No.1 refused to accept the notice. Such handwritten endorsement is shown in italic text in the above quoted text of said affidavit. Irrespective of other issues on hand, it is surprising to note that such affidavit does not disclose the details of the deponent like his age, occupation, address etc. for which Registry has to be careful. It is not certain that, who is deponent. Therefore, when the partner of the petitioner firm is the same, it is to be presumed that he has filed such affidavit.
The learned senior counsel was called upon to confirm that what steps are required to be taken in case of refusal of notice by litigant when direct service is permitted, considering the provisions of Order 5 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code ( CPC , for short) read with relevant provisions of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993. It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel that practically, there is no specific provision like Order 5 Rule 17 of the CPC in the Gujarat High Court Rules 1993. Therefore, so far as service of notice upon the litigant is concerned, we have to rely upon the provisions of CPC.
Heard Learned Advocate for the petitioner at length, who is pressing to consider the un-served respondents, who have refused to accept the notice, to be considered as deemed served because of their refusal to accept notice during process of direct service by the petitioner.
It is contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that Order V Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code in short) provides that refusal to accept notice shall be considered as deemed service, once the person who has tried to serve the notice has filed an affidavit of such refusal.
For better consideration of the provision of Rule 17 of the Order V, the same is require to be read with following dissection, where the rule is reproduced as such, but relevant text is bold, underlined and printing in steps is selected for proper consideration.
"17. Procedure when defendant refuses to accept service, or cannot be found. -
Where the defendant or his agent or such other person as aforesaid refuses to sign the acknowledgement, or where the service officer, after using all due and reasonable diligence, cannot find the defendant, (who is absent from his residence at the time when service is sought to be effected on him at his residence and there is no likelihood of his being found at the residence within a reasonable time) and there is no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, nor any other person on whom service can be made, the serving officer shall affix a copy of the summons on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the defendant originally resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, and shall then return the original to the Court from which it was issued, with a report endorsed thereon or annexed thereto stating that he has so affixed the copy, the circumstances under which he did so, and the name and address of the person (if any) by whom the house was identified and in whose presence the copy was affixed."
If we peruse the above provision carefully, it becomes clear that the later part of the provision regarding affixing a copy of the summons or notice on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house is not related only to the case of non service by the Serving Officer when he could not found defendant at the given address after using all due and reasonable diligence and there is no likelihood of his being found at such address within reasonable time and that such person has not empowered any agent to accept service of summons on his behalf; but applies to both the options i.e. in case of refusal and in above mentioned position.
Thus there are two possibilities of non service; one refusal and second non availability of defendant for effecting service at his residence at the given point of time; which are not separated by the word "and" but the word "or" is used between both options; that means in either of the case the condition in later part of the provision; [regarding affixing the notice on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the defendant ordinarily resides etc. and shall then return the original to the Court from which it was received, with a report endorsed thereon and annexed thereto stating that he has affixed the copy, the circumstances under which he did so and the name and address of the persons (if any) by whom the house was identified and in whose presence the copy was affixed;] applies and hence in absence of compliance of such condition, it can not be said that the notice is properly served upon defendant/respondent.
On careful perusal of the Rule, it becomes clear that provision regarding affixing of the notice is applicable to both the options of non service to defendant, namely refusal by the defendant and when defendant cannot be found with two proviso regarding likelihood of defendant being not found in reasonable time and non availability of empowered agent or other person to accept the notice on behalf of the defendant.
The provision is also clear so far as action to be taken by the serving officer in above condition of non service. It is specifically provided that the Serving officer has to
1) affix the notice at the conspicuous part of the house in which defendant originally resides or carries on business or personally works for gain,
2) return the original (notice) to the Court from which it was issued,
3) with a report stating that he has so affixed the copy
(i) the circumstances under which he did so, and
(ii) the name and address of the person (if any) by whom the house was identified and
(iii) in whose presence the copy was affixed.
Thus it is clear, when rule confirms that the serving officer has to file an affidavit with a report stating the circumstances under which he affix the notice, that affixing of the notice is applicable in both cases refusal and non availability of the defendant, and serving officer has to file an affidavit stating that why he has affixed the notice i.e. whether due to refusal or whether due to non availability of the defendant at the address, with the name and address of the person (if any) by whom the house was identified or if he himself is certain about the address, [which is an option prescribed in Form 11 in Appendix B of the Code,] and in whose presence the copy was affixed. So mere discloser about refusal is not enough for considering the service as deemed served.
Though there is no specific clarification or definition of the "Serving Officer"
in the Code or in the judgment referred by the petitioner, same can be confirmed from the Proforma of the Affidavit as form No.11 in Appendix B of the Code, which reads as under:-
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Appendix B Form No. 11 AFFIDAVIT OF PROCESS-SERVER TO ACCOMPANY RETURN OF SUMMONS OR NOTICE (Order V, rule 18) (Title) The affidavit of ___________ , son of ________________ I ___________________ make oath/affirm and say as follows : -
I am a process-server of this Court. (2) On the _____ day of ________19__, I received summon/notice issued by the Court of _______________ in Suit No. ____ of 19___, in the said Court, dated _____ the _____ day _______ of 19 __, for service on _____________________.(3)
The said __________________ was at the time personally known to me, and I served the said summons/notice on him/her on the _____ day of _________ 19__ at about ___ o'clock in the ________ noon at _______ by tendering a copy thereof to him/her and requiring his/her signature to the original summons/notice.
(a)
(b)
(a) Here state whether the person served signed or refused to sign the process, and in whose presence.
(b) Signature of process-server.
or (3) The said ____________________ not being personally known to me ________________________ accompanied me to ___________________________________ and pointed out to me a person whom he stated to be the said ___________, and I served the said summons/notice on him/her on the ______ day of ____ 19 __, at about _______o'clock in the _____ noon at________ by tendering a copy thereof to him/her requiring___________ his/her signature to the original summons/notice.
(a)
(b)
(a) Here state whether the person served signed or refused to sign the process, and in whose presence.
(b) Signature of process-server.
or, (3) The said _____________ and the house in which he ordinarily resides being personally known to me, I went to the said house, in ___________ and there on the _____ day of _____ 19__ , at about _____ o'clock in the _____ noon, I did not find the said
(a)
(b)
(a) Enter fully and exactly the manner in which the process was served, with special reference to Order V, rules 15 and 17. (b) Signature of process-server.
or, (3) One ____________ accompanied me to __________ and there pointed out to me ________________ which he said was the house in which _______________ ordinarily resides. I did not find the said ___________ there.
(a)
(b)
(a) Enter fully and exactly the manner in which the process was served, with special reference to Order V, rules 15 and 17.
(b) Signature of process-server.
or, If substituted service has been ordered, state fully and exactly the manner in which the summons was served with special reference to the terms of the order for substituted service. Sworn/Affirmed by the said _____________________ before me this _____ day of ____ 19___/20___.
Empowered under Section 139 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to administer the oath to deponents.
Para 1 of such Proforma Affidavit specifically states/provides the identity of the person who has to file an affidavit, which states that :-
"I am a process-server of this Court".
Thus, above sentence in prescribed form of affidavit read with the provision of the Rule 9 and 19 of the Code makes it clear that the serving officer is officer of the court, though reference to the word "serving officer" is not there in Rule 9, the reference of "proper officer" is sub rule (2) denotes the "serving officer" as referred in other rules and "process server"
as referred in Form 11 in Appendix B. Rule 9, 9A and Rule 19 reads as under (relevant portion is bold and underlined for ease in consideration of the relevant provision):9
Delivery of Summons by Court (1) Where the defendant resides within the jurisdiction of the court in which the suit is instituted, or has an agent resident within that jurisdiction who is empowered to accept the service of the summons, the summons shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be delivered or sent either to the proper officer to be served by him or one of his subordinates or to such courier services as are approved by the Court.(2)
The proper officer may be an officer of a Court other than that in which the suit is instituted, and where he is such an officer, the summons may be sent to him in such manner as the Court may direct.
(3) The services of summons may be made by delivering or transmitting a copy thereof by registered post acknowledgment due, addressed to the defendant or his agent empowered to accept the service or by speed post or by such courier services as are approved by the High Court or by the Court referred to in sub-rule (I) or by any other means of transmission of documents (including fax message or electronic mail service) provided by the rules made by the High Court: Provided that the service of summons under this sub-rule shall be made at the expenses of the plaintiff.
(4)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), where a defendant resides outside the jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit is instituted, and the Court directs that the service of summons on that defendant may be made by such mode of service of summons as is referred to in sub-rule (3) (except by registered post acknowledgment due), the provisions of rule 21 shall not apply.
(5)When an acknowledgment or any other receipt purporting to be signed by the defendant or his agent is received by the Court or postal article containing the summons is received back by the Court with an endorsement purporting to have been made by a postal employee or by any person authorised by the courier service to the effect that the defendant or his agent had refused to take delivery of the postal article containing the summons or had refused to accept the sum mons by any other means specified in sub-rule (3) when tendered or transmitted to him, the Court issuing the summons shall declare that the summons had been duly served on the defendant: Provided that where the summons was properly addressed, pre-paid and duly sent by registered post acknowledgment due, the declaration referred to in this sub-rule shall be made notwithstanding the fact that the acknowledgment having been lost or mislaid, or for any other reason, has not been received by the Court within thirty days from the date of issue of summons. (6) The High Court or the District Judge, as the case may be, shall prepare a panel of courier agencies for the purposes of sub-rule (1).
9A Summons given to the Plaintiff for Service (1) The court may, in addition to the service of summons under rule 9, on the application of the plaintiff for the issue of a summons for the appearance of the defendant, permit such plaintiff to effect service of such summons on such defendant and shall, in such a case, deliver the summons to such plaintiff for service.
(2) The service of such summons shall be effected by-or on behalf of such plaintiff by delivering or tendering to the defendant personally a copy thereof signed by the Judge or such officer the Court as he may appoint in this behalf and sealed with the seal of the Court or by such mode of service as is referred to in sub-rule (3) of rule 9.
(3)The provisions of rules 16 and 18 shall apply to a summons personally served under this rule as if the person effecting service were a serving officer.
(4)If such summons, when tendered, is refused or if the person served refuses to sign an acknowledgment of service or for any reason such summons cannot be served personally, the Court shall, on the application of the party, re-issue such summons to be served by the Court in the same manner as a summons to a defendant.".
19Examination of serving officer -
Where a summons is returned under Rule 17, the Court shall, if the return under that rule has not been verified by the affidavit of the serving officer and may, if it has been so verified examine serving officer on oath or cause him to be so examined by another court, touching his proceedings, and may make such further inquiry in the matter as it thinks fit; and shall either declare that the summons has been duly served or order such service as it thinks fit.
Above provision makes it clear that the refusal of notice can be considered as deemed service only if it is refused before the serving officer - processor server or proper officer as referred in different rules but not during the Direct service which is permitted by Rule 9A. Because in sub rule (3) of Rule 9A, it is made clear that Provisions of Rule 16 & 18 shall apply to a summons personally served under this rule as if the person effecting service were a serving officer. Thus when two Rules are specifically referred leaving the Rule falls in sequence between those two rules, namely Rule 17, it is certain that provision of Rule 17 do not apply to such option of service which is given to plaintiff (which includes petitioner, appellant and all litigant). More over sub rule (4) make it mandatory for the Court to issue fresh notice through regular course by the Court in the same manner as a summons to a defendant. Rule 19 A empowers the Court to examine the serving officer and though word "shall" is used, the next action /step is discretionary i.e. ether to declare that the summons as duly served or order such service as it thinks fit.
It is also certain that the provision regarding filing affidavit in Performa No. 11 of Appendix B makes it clear that such Affidavit is to be filed by the process server of the Court. Moreover affidavit makes a provision for the deponent of such affidavit that what to disclose specifically, with following options in para 3; with specific provision for the signature of process server;
"Here state whether the person served, signed or refused to sign the process and in whose presence.' OR "Enter fully and exactly the manner in which the process was served, with special reference to Order 5, Rules 15 and 17."
AND "Signature of the process server."
The judgment between Parasurama Odayar vs. Appadurai Chetty and Ors by the Full Bench of Madras High Court and reported in AIR 1970 Madras 271 is also confirming the same position. The relevant portion (para 12 on page 276 & 277) of the judgment, which is with reference to the provision of Rule 19 of the Order V of the Code reads as under:
"12.
Now let us consider the rule more closely. The first part says that, where a summons has been returned under that rule has not been verified by the affidavit of the serving officer, and may, if it has been so verified, examine the service officer on oath or cause him to be so examined by another court, touching his proceedings, and may make such further enquiry in the matter as it thinks fit. Thus it says that, where the return under Rule 17 has not been verified by the affidavit of the serving officer, the Court shall examine him on oath and it is mandatory. If there is an affidavit, it means that the serving officer has stated something on oath and, if the statement turns out to be false he could be prosecuted. That itself would put him on guard and make him adhere to the truth as far as possible and would minimize the chances of a false return of service. It is with the same object that the Court is required to examine him on oath where he has not verified the return by an affidavit before the prescribed officer (Nazir). We know of numerous instances where defendants and judgment-debtors come to the Court and state that the process server has not come to their place at all and that the alleged affixture is a myth; and there are several cases where such a contention of the defendant or judgment-debtor has been accepted by the Courts. Such a danger would be minimized if the Court adheres to the provisions of Order V, Rule 19. If it makes it a point to question the serving officer as to what he did when he went to the village and what attempts he made to get at the defendant, there is no doubt that the service would be more real and effective than it would be otherwise. We cannot really over-emphasise the importance of this provision. Very often there is room for thinking that the Court does not even look into the return, but simply says "Service sufficient, defendant absent; set ex parte". That defeats the salutary purpose for which the detailed provisions have been enacted with anxiety by the Legislature."
In the above judgment it is no where confirmed that serving officer means the litigant and even in case of refusal of notice before the litigant, it can be considered as deemed service. What is emphasised by the petitioner before that Court, as observed by the High Court in above discussion, is that no one would file a false affidavit since he may be prosecuted for false affidavit and hence litigant / petitioner is the serving officer once Direct is allowed and affidavit by him is proper for assumption of deem service in case of refusal to accept the same by the opponent. However, it is difficult to assume as such, more particularly because of the clear provision in law and decision of Apex Court.
If we peruse the judgment of the Apex Court between Sushil Kumar Sabharwal vs. Gurpreet Singh, reported in AIR 2002 SC 2370, the observation in para 8, after reproducing the text of Rule 17 & 18 in para 7, makes the position clear, which reads as under:-
8. We find several infirmities and lapses on the part of the process-server.
Firstly, on the alleged refusal by the defendant either he did not affix a copy of the summons and the plaint on the wall of the shop or if he claims to have done so, then the endorsement made by him on the back of the summons does not support him, rather contradicts him. Secondly, the tendering of the summons, its refusal and affixation of the summons and copy of the plaint on the wall should have been witnessed by persons who identified the defendant and his shop and witnessed such procedure.
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x"
Rest of the part of para 8 is factual details of the reported case and hence not produced but its cognizance and supporting view being taken at present that even in the case of refusal by defendant, the later part of Rule 17 of Order V is applied to the serving officer / process-server and when we refer the process server, it is of Court and not the litigant as difference being confirmed in prescribed draft of affidavit which is to be filed by the process server of the Court. In para 13 of said reported judgment, the Apex Court has categorically determined that the summons was not served on defendant-appellant.
Reference to the reported case of the Apex Court between State of Jammu & Kashmir vs. Haji Wali Mohammed, AIR 1972 SC 2538 is also necessary, inasmuch, as in this case also it is categorically confirmed that even simple affidavit is not enough for considering the service as deemed service in case of refusal of service by the concerned litigant. The relevant para is 11 on page 2543 reads as under:
11. It cannot be and indeed it has not been disputed that notices were not served in accordance with the procedure prescribed for service of summons in the Civil Procedure Code. Even if we accept what Dr. Singhvi says that there was a refusal to accept the summons and that was the reasons for effecting service by affixation the provisions of O. 5, R. 19 of the Code were not complied with by the filing of an affidavit of the serving officer etc. All that has been pointed out by Dr. Singhvi is that the notices were produced along with the writ petitions which showed that they had been affixed to the premises and that in the writ petitions it was admitted that notices had been affixed on January 9, 1968 on the properties of the petitioners. We do not consider that any such averment dispensed with the requirement of the statutory provision contained in S. 239 of the Municipal Act in the matter of service of notices.
Thus, it is clear that provision of Order V Rule 19 is required to be followed strictly, which refers to filing of affidavit as per prescribed form and it must be confirming conditions of the rule regarding the affixing the notice, witnessing of such affixing etc. by the process server.
This view is confirmed by provision of sub rule (3) & (4) of Rule 9A of Order V of the Code; where in there is no mention of Rule 16 and as per sub rule (5) court has to issue fresh notice to unserved defendant/ respondent.
Thus, in view of the above discussion, it is certain that even in case of refusal of notice by the litigant, the notice or summons is required to be affixed at the given address in presence of the witnesses as provided under the Rules and such facts must be properly disclosed with proper affidavit and proper endorsement on original copy of the summons by the process server of the Court, who is a public servant.
Therefore in the present case when petitioner, who is not a process server of the Court and hence not a public servant also, has failed to take appropriate steps so far as second part of the provisions of Order V Rule 17 of the Code regarding affixing the notice at the address of the respondent in the presence of the witnesses and endorsement on the notice, return of original copy of the notice with endorsement of witnesses etc. are concerned. Therefore notice can not be considered as deemed served, as requested by the petitioner.
Therefore in absence of proper compliance of the provisions of Order V Rule 17, no notice can be considered as deemed served only because of statement given by the party/ litigant that his opponent has refused to accept the notice. To make it clear, it is stated that in such cases litigant who has obtained Direct service has to request the nearest Civil Court to affect the service to the concerned litigant through the process-server of that Court at the given address and proper affidavit is necessary by the process server as required under the Rule and Proforma affidavit in Appendix B. Chapter 7 of the Gujarat High Court Rules 1993 has relevant provisions regarding service of notice on respondents. Amongst those rules, between Rule 87 to 91, Rule 91 provides the procedure when notice is returned unserved, or served by affixing.
91. Procedure when notices returned unserved, or served by affixing.
(a) If a notice to a respondent or opponent is returned unserved, or is returned served by affixing at the registered address, the following procedure shall be adopted. The office shall on the first working day of the week, place on the Notice Board under the signature of the Assistant Registrar a list showing the notices that have been returned unserved and those that have been returned served by affixing at the registered addresses.
The list shall state :
the number of the proceeding, the name of the Advocate for the appellant or applicant, the name of the person whom the notice has been returned unserved or served by affixing, showing the designation as opponent or respondent, and where he is reported to be dead, a statement to that effect, the date on which the unserved notice was received in the office, Deleted.
The publication of this list on the Notice Board shall be deemed to be sufficient intimation to the appellant or applicant, as the case may be,of non-service or of service by affixing the notice. A copy of the list shall be given to the Advocate Association for its use.
(b) Within one month of the publication of the list mentioned above in case of an unserved notice the Advocate or party shall file a regular stamped application for issue of fresh notice at a different address but where the notice is served by affixing he shall supply postal stamps to cover the postal and registration charges.
Delay in taking action under sub-rule(b) of this rule, may be excused by the Registrar up to a maximum of 15 days in expedited or short notice matters and of 30 days in other matters and if no application is made or postal stamps supplied within such period, the procedure prescribed in Chapter XII shall be followed.
(d) In cases where a notice is returned unserved reporting the death of the party to be served and where no action is taken to bring the heirs of the deceased party on record with in 90 days from the date of the publication of the list under this rule, the matter shall be placed before the Registrar for orders regarding the abatement of the appeal or application as against deceased party.
Though similar provision that of Civil Procedure Code is not found within the Gujarat High Court Rules 1993, there is a reference of service of notice by affixing at the registered address and for such service, relevant provision is found in Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which is described in detail in the aforesaid paragraphs. Therefore, it cannot be said and if such practice is prevailing in the High Court to consider the affidavit, which is filed in the present case for service upon respondent No.1 is as per Rules and same cannot be treated as a proper proof of service.
In view of above facts and circumstances, request of learned senior counsel to consider the notice of respondent No.1 as duly served cannot be accepted. Therefore, let there be a fresh notice upon the unserved respondent No.1 by RPAD.
List on 10.04.2013.
Copy of this order be forwarded to learned Registrar General for doing the needful by the Registry in similar cases for proper verification of affidavits in view of observations in paragraph 5 above regarding blanks and insufficient details in such affidavits.
(V.M.SAHAI, J.) (S.G.SHAH, J.) (binoy) Page 26 of 26