defendants No.1 and 6 were received back with report of
incorrect address. Summons of defendants No.2 and 3 were not
received back either ... issued to the defendant No.6
received back with report of incorrect address. Notice to
defendant No.3 could not be issued for want
wherein he was ordered to be summoned but
due to his incorrect address, he could not be served. Resultantly, the trial
Court passed order dated ... Court was neither intentional nor
willful due to mentioning of his incorrect address.
Learned State counsel, on instructions, has endorsed the
submissions made by counsel
submitted that the respondent had intentionally and cleverly
mentioned an incorrect address of the appellant in his petition under Section ... appellant, in order to further hammer forth his
aforesaid submission regarding incorrect address, has referred to copy of
Aadhar Card annexed with the appeal wherein
pleaded that his address was available with
PUDA, Jalandhar and had the AO made some genuine efforts, his address
could have been obtained from ... power of attorney in favour of Jarnail Singh and with incorrect address,
was an invalid return. The verification had also been found to be improper
petition, the petitioner has explained that her wrong and
incorrect address was given and she was in a family way, which restrained her
movements
addresses given were not correct. Instead of giving correct addresses of the respondents and fresh process fee for effecting service, petitioner repeated the same addresses ... respondents were incorrect as per report of the process serving agency. Service by way of substituted means by giving the same incorrect addresses would
that in the plaint of civil suit No.7/87 (Exhibit P3) address of the
plaintiff has been given as resident of Sonepat,whereas, admittedly ... residing at village Kurar Ibrahimpur. Hence, the defendant had given
incorrect address of the plaintiff in the earlier suit so that summons should
residing. Rather,
the complainant has issued the notice on the incorrect address
through registered post. Therefore, the Court held that there is no
compliance
respondent No.1
have been received back with the report of incorrect address.
Whereas, notice issued to respondent No.2 has not been received
back
only gave
his fictitious address of Gurgaon, but also mentioned the
incorrect address of respondent No. 1-complainant in the
documents forged by the petitioner
