The main legal point established is that valid service of summons, as recognized by the Code of Civil Procedure, should be considered in the right perspective, and the tracking report generated by the Department of Posts should be taken at its face value.

JUDGMENT :

Tushar Rao Gedela, J.

The petitioner challenges the order dated 18.03.2023 passed in Civil Suit No. 812/2022 titled ‘Manju Malik v. Rohini Heights Residence Welfare Association’ whereby the learned Trial Court not being satisfied with the service of summons upon the respondent/defendant association has directed the petitioner to serve the summons upon the respondent/defendant association afresh.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 30.07.2022, learned Trial Court had directed issuance of summons to the defendant on filing PF/RC/Speed Post/AD and posted the matter for 17.10.2022.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned P.O. was on leave on 17.10.2022 and the matter was posted for 31.01.2023.

4. Learned counsel submits that upon the process fee being filed by the report dated 13.08.2022, the process server has submitted his report that the summons were served upon one Mr. Gaurav, who, according to the report, was an employee of the respondent-Welfare Association. The Process Server has filed report giving positive assertion of service.

5. Not being satisfied with the said report, learned counsel submits that, though the learned Trial Court had mentioned the report of the process server dated 13.08.2022, yet did not take notice of such service. Moreover, the learned Trial Court also disbelieved the Speed Post tracking report showing that the summons were delivered even otherwise on 06.09.2022.

6. Learned counsel submits that after recording that it is not satisfied with such service, learned Trial Court gave yet another opportunity to serve the summons upon the respondent/defendant association.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also submits that in accordance with the order, process fee yet again had been filed. The process server's report dated 15.02.2023 was filed, confirming that the respondent/defendant Welfare Association was served through an employee, Mr. Krishan Kumar Jha who has accepted the said summons after having spoken, with the President Sh. Veer Pal Sharma, over phone.

8. Learned counsel submits that all this was recorded by the Process Server in his report dated 15.02.2023. Learned counsel submits that surprisingly even this service was not taken as the valid service by the Trial Court and vide the impugned order directed the petitioner/plaintiff to serve summons upon the respondent/defendant Welfare Association by filing PF/RC/Speed Post/AD and listed the matter for 01.05.2023.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC, 1908 seeking urgent directions has been pending adjudication for 30.07.2022 and has not been taken up for consideration at all for the purported lack of service upon the respondent/defendant. Learned counsel submits that this process appears to be never ending and would render the application infructuous.

10. This Court proceeds to dispose of the instant petition in accordance with Delhi High Court Circular No. 69/Rules/DHC dated 05.12.2019, which reads as under:—

“5. Appearance on the first date of listing:—

(b) In case any opposite party does not appear before the Court upon advance service of the petition, the Court may not issue any further notice to such opposite party and may pass any order(s) as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

11. This Court has considered the aforesaid submissions as also perused the documents including the various reports of the process server. According to the procedure prescribed under Order V CPC, 1908, the ordinary process of service is considered to be the best possible and reliable mode of service.

12. The service of process through the process server upon the opposite party is considered as a correct and valid service which recognized by the Code of Civil Procedure. It is intriguing to note that despite the report dated 13.08.2022 as well as the report dated 15.02.2023, submit