Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The crux of the matter is that whether the applicant/defendant no.4 has or has not refused service as found in terms of the endorsement of the postman dated 28.5.2009 on the postal article containing the summons which were issued by this Court for 7.7.2009. In my opinion, in view of the direct ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Parimal (supra) and which states that once there is an endorsement of refusal, it is necessary for the person who wants to rebut the presumption of service, to summon the postman, but since the applicant/defendant no.4 has only filed her self-serving affidavit of not refusing and without calling the concerned postman, the onus of proof which was upon the applicant/defendant no.4 in terms of the issue framed on 26.11.2012 cannot be said to have been discharged by the applicant/defendant no.4 especially in view of the categorical observations of the Supreme Court in this regard contained in para 23 of the case of Parimal (supra). I have already noted above that the applicant/defendant no.4 was endeavoured to be served not only in one method by registered post but also through the court process server although service could not be effected through the court process server who had given his reports dated 2.6.2009 and 25.6.2009.