Sh. Prabhu Dayal vs M.C.D. And Anr. on 23 March, 2001
9. The learned counsel for the plaintiff strenuously argued that these documents are fabricated by defendant/MCD and defendant had not been able to show as to how these orders were served on the plaintiff. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendant argued that the service was effected and it could be effected even by affixation as well which was the proper mode of service prescribed under the Act itself and relied upon the judgment in the case of K.Krishnaswmy Vs. M.C.D.reported as 1996 IV AD(Delhi) 198. The original file was also produced for perusal. However any comments by the court on the service/non-service of these notices can prejudice either party and it is appropriate that this issue is decided by the appellate Tribunal itself.