IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRP No.42 of 2023 Snigdharani Barik …. Petitioner Mr. Satyabadi Mantry, Advocate -versus-

Kalendra Maszid and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Jajati Keshari Khuntia, Advocate for O.P.No.1 Mr. MD Fayaz, Advocate for O.P. No.8 CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER

09. 08.01.2025 CRP No.42 of 2023 & I.A. Nos.66, 65 & 64 of 2024 This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. As per office note it shows that notice issued to opposite party Nos. 5(a) and 5(b) returned unserved with a report “unclaimed”. It is stated by Mr. Satyabadi Mantry, learned counsel for the petitioner that the “unclaimed” notice as against the said opposite parties be treated as sufficient.

This Court takes note of following observation made in Ajeet Seeds Ltd. Vrs. K. Gopala Krishnaiah, (2014) 8 SCR 880:

“9. This Court then explained the nature of presumptions under Section 114 of the Evidence Act and under Section 27 of the GC Act and pointed out how these two presumptions are to be employed while considering the question of service of notice under Section 138 of the NI Act. The relevant paragraphs read as under:

„13. According to Section 114 of the Act, re