The central legal point established is the requirement for proper adjudication and compliance with legal procedures, particularly in cases involving service of summons and awareness of legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.:-- (Oral)

1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.

2. Appellant impugns order dated 01.04.2021 whereby the application filed by the appellant under Order 9 Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure (CPC for short) has been dismissed.

3. Subject suit was filed by the respondents for possession, permanent and mandatory injunction and for recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits and damages.

4. It is contended in the suit that appellant is a tenant under the respondent at a rate of Rs. 4000/- per month and despite vacation notice has failed to vacate the premises.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submits that appellant is not a tenant in the property but is an owner of the property and the property was purchased by the husband of the appellant. It is submitted that respondents have fabricated the documents after the property was purchased by the appellant.

6. Further it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant was neither served with the summons of the suit nor was aware of the pendency of the suit. He submits that no opportunity of leading evidence was granted to the appellant to show that appellant was never served with the summons of the suit.

7. Impugned order dated 01.04.2021 holds that the application under Order 9 Rule 13 on the face of it is devoid of merits. Trial Court has held that initially the appellant stood served through her daughter-in-law and even an affidavit to the said effect was filed by the respondent plaintiff.

8. The Trial court records that the Court by its order dated 27.03.2017 directed fresh service on the appellant. Trial Court further records that appellant had even refused to accept/claim the process/summons as reported by the postman who had gone to deliver the same at the address of the appellant.

9. The Trial Court in the impugned order has recorded that the order sheet of the day reveals that one Ms. Jyoti was found at the given address who claimed herself to be the daughter of the appellant and she refused to accept the service. Thereafter summons were affixed at the address of the appellant. Accordingly, the Trial Court has held that it was valid service in the eyes of law.

10. Further Trial Court has held that the order sheet revealed that appellant did not claim/receive the summons sent through registered post despite visits by the postman on two different dates.

11. In view of the above, the Trial Court has returned a finding that appellant clearly knew about the filing of the suit and intentionally avoided to receive the process as well as to appear in the Court to defend the suit.

12. The Trial Court has additionally held that as the address was correct and even legal notice was received by the appellant at the said address, the application under Order 9 Rule 13 was devoid of any merits and was dismissed.

13. Perusal of the record of the Trial Court shows that the suit was listed before the Court for the first time on 16.12.2016 when notice was directed to be issued, returnable for 22.12.2016.

14. The endorsement of the court staff on the order sheet dated 16.12.2016 shows that dasti summons were collected by the counsel for the respondent on 20.12.2016.

15. Order sheet of 22.12.2016 records that the appellant is served through her daughter-in-law Smt. Meenakshi Sharma. The Trial Court directed the respondent to file an affidavit to the said effect and accordingly the proceedings were adjourned to 22.03.2017. On 22.12.2016 there was admittedly no service report on record.

16. There is an endorsement of the court staff on the order sheet dated 22.12.2016 for the next date that process is unserved and registered envelope is unclaimed.

17. Order sheet of 27.03.2017 records that affidavit of compliance was filed by Sh. Alok Chandra son of the respondent on 13.01.2017. The Trial Court has recorded that process issued did not show any report on the back of the process and the affidavit of compliance did not disclose that respondent was