Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. In reply, the plaintiff /non-applicant had refuted all averments made by the applicants in the application and taken the stand that the averments were false to the knowledge of the defendants and defendants were very much aware of the filing of suit. The plaintiff had sent the summons by registered post, the reports of the process server were genuine and they (applicants) deliberately refused to receive summons from the process server.

6. A perusal of the summons sent to defendants through the District Judge Jaipur would show that the summons were not marked to any process server by the District Judge or by office of the District Judge and directly a report is there on the summons. The report on summons of Ajay Nagewala, Harish Nagewala are of 27th May 2000 and that of Ramesh Chand are of 30.5.2000. All the reports are counter signed on 30.5.2000 by the process serving agency of District Court Jaipur. These reports do not create confidence and that seems to be the reason that this Court had ordered for publication. Similarly, although postal receipts of pasting notices have been filed but there is no refusal report or report of receiving back the summons and the court directed service through publication.