 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Report No. 140 2.4. Effect of refusal (Madras amendment).- The effect of a refusal to accept a summons sent by registered post under the Madras amendment1 was considered in Madras case. Rule 9(3) of the Madras amendment was at issue. The referring Judge, Mr. Justice Ganapatia Pillai, was of the view that refusal to accept service had the same effect as refusal of such notice when tendered personally. One of the reasons which he put forth in support of his view was, that if such a contention was not to be accepted, then rule 9(3) (inserted by the Madras amendment) would be rendered nugatory. However, the Division Bench, to which the reference was made, did not accept this approach.2 It held that refusal on the part of the defendant to accept postal service (under the Madras amendment) could not be considered as equivalent to due service, so as to enable the court to pass an ex parte decree on the strength thereof. The Division Bench specifically referred to the possibility that an indifferent or dishonest postman might return the registered letter as "refused", without going near the defendant and the court would have no effective sanction or control over him. 1. Para. 2.3, supra. 2. Pichai Animal v. Vellayya Thevar, AIR 1963 Mad 198 (DB) (Ramachandra Iyer, C.J. and Anantanarayanan, J.).    |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||
Back