Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Civil Procedure code Order IX rule 4 in Sweety Gupta vs Neety Gupta & Ors on 25 October, 2016Matching Fragments
20. While dealing with the aforesaid application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC referred to above, the learned Single Judge on 26.11.2012 framed the following issue:-
"Whether the applicant/defendant No.4 did not refuse to accept process when tendered by the postman on 29.05.2009."FAO(OS) 108/2016 Page 11 of 20
21. The learned Single Judge after analyzing the provisions of Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC and the relevant judgments of the Supreme Court declaring that once there is an endorsement of refusal, it is incumbent upon a person who wants to rebut the presumption of service, to disprove such service by summoning the postman and also noticing the fact that there was an intimation/letter by DDA dated 20.04.2009 (Exh.PW1/VII) informing the appellant/defendant No.4 that the mutation over one of the suit properties was not possible till the disposal of the suit bearing No. CS(OS) 2209/2008 i.e. the present suit (Smt Neety Gupta v Usha Gupta & Ors) is settled by the High Court, rejected the prayer of the appellant for setting aside of the preliminary decree dated 27.09.2011.