1. The summons issued to the petitioner defendant was issued by post under sub-rule (3) of R.9 of Order V of the Code, not under R.20V It was returned with the endorsement by the postman that it had been refused. Sub-rule (3) of R.9 says that, "an acknowledgement purporting to be signed by the defendant shall be deemed to be sufficient proof of service of such summons". It says nothing about an endorsement of refusal, and the implication is clear that that is not to be deemed to be sufficient proof of service. That rules out the application of the principle underlying sub-rule (2) of R.20A under which an endorsement of refusal may be deemed to be prima facie proof of service rule 20A.

it will be noted, provides for a subsequent summons, a summons having been already returned unserved thus lending some assurance to the endorsement of refusal, whereas sub-rule (3) of R.9 provides for the first summons; or of S.27 of the General Clauses Act; or of any presumption under S.114 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, it is clear that there was not due service of the summons. (See in this connection the division bench ruling in Pichai Ammal v. Vellayya AIR. 1963 Madras 198 and t