refusal could arise only if the endorsement 'refused' was proved by evidence, and this could only be done by producing the postman ... postman unless the postman is examined, and, such endorsement was inadmissible in evidence. The Full Bench thus answered the question, accordingly, holding that postman
postman is that at the site of the petitioner "information given". But on
11th April, 2012 the report of refusal is mentioned. Thus ... expressed doubts with respect to giving of the report of refusal by the
postman. It is in the aforesaid facts found in the case
issues and
summoning of the postal record including the postman who made the report
of refusal, but neither in any grounds of appeal before this ... endeavour would not have been made
because before giving the refusal report the postman had visited the address
of the appellant/defendant, and refusal report
have been served at all simply because the postman, who had made the endorsement of refusal, had not been produced. The Andhra Pradesh High Court ... would prevail over the postal remarks that it was "refused" unless the postman was examined.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussions
house of the defendants. Similarly, there was a report of the Postman of refusal to receive the registry. Though the defendants have filed affidavits ... registered post. The process server and the Postman both have given their report that the defendants had refused to receive the summons. The finding
postman and therefore, the endorsement made on the notice cover by the postman must be taken as a proof of refusal by the respondent ... same as there was an endorsement by the postman to the effect 'refused'. He therefore contended that notice was served and the accused
through registered cover, came back with the endorsement of 'refusal'
by the postman. The subsequent order dated 1.8.1996 records that ... found that there was a report of refusal of the
postman and therefore in fact the petitioner/tenant was already served for
7.2.1996. Additional Rent
fault. But District Consumer Forum merely relying on
the refusal endorsement made by postman wrongly passed the exparte
impugned judgment and order. It is submitted ... aware about the contents of
envelop which was returned by postman making endorsement as
refused. Thus it is obvious from the undisputed facts that opponent
registered post were received back unserved
with the report "refused". The postman has simply written his report
as "refused
were not as per the averments and even refusal had not been proved by
examining the postman concerned. Accordingly, a finding was recorded
that mandatory
