Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. As per the track consignment report, annexed to the memo dated 28.02.2024, the item was delivered to the sender on 23.02.2024.

13. Sender is learned counsel for the petitioners in C.R.P(s). But the registered envelopes, from which the address mentioned thereon could be known to the writ court, was not brought on record with the memo dated 28.02.2024. The counsel for the petitioners(in C.R.P) did not file the registered post letters, which were received back by him. He filed only the track consignment report to show refusal.

14. Considering the memo of proof of service dated 28.02.2024, this Court ordered that there was refusal and hence service was deemed effected on the respondents 1 to 3 in C.R.P(s).

15. Before this Court also, learned counsel for the petitioners in C.R.P. emphasized the report dated 20.02.2024 'item returned refused', as in the track consignment report, which did not show, to what address, items were sent.

16. In the present Review Petition also, learned counsel for the respondents, Sri Sanjay Suraneni, filed memo on 09.09.2024, bringing on record the postal registered envelopes and based therein, emphasized that the notices were refused.

19. Learned counsel for the petitioners in C.R.P, could not answer the query of the court as to when the registered letters were received back by him on 23.02.2024 itself, as to why those letters were not brought on record in C.R.P(s)., though he filed memo dated 28.02.2024 and bringing on record the track consignment report only.

20. This Court is satisfied that, the review petitioners had no opportunity of hearing in the C.R.P, for want of service. Unless the letter/notices were sent to the correct address, it could not be said that there was refusal by the correct person/party in C.R.P. There was no occasion for deemed service by refusal.