1. The respondent deliberately avoided service of notice, warranting substituted service. (Para 7 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 3313
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Manash Ranjan Pathak, Sibo Sankar Mishra, JJ
Sunita Nayak – Appellant
Versus
Anup Kumar Tota – Respondent
MATA No. 154 of 2015
Important Points
A party cannot avoid judicial process by remaining absent or refusing service. Once notice is sent to the correct address via registered post and affixture is performed under Order V Rule 17 CPC, service is deemed sufficient unless rebutted by the addressee.
Subject
Civil - Matrimonial/Procedural Law
Act Referred
Indian Evidence Act: S.114
General Clauses Act, 1897: S.27
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: O.VI R.14A, O.V R.9(5), O.V R.17, O.V R.19
General Clauses Act, 1897: S.27
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: O.VI R.14A, O.V R.9(5), O.V R.17, O.V R.19
Headnote
(A) Civil Procedure - Service of Summons - Deemed Service - Where a notice is properly addressed, prepaid, and sent by registered post to the correct address, a presumption of service arises under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, shifting the burden to the addressee to prove non-receipt. (Para 5, 6)
(B) Service of Summons - Refusal and Affixture - Conduct of Party - Refusal by family members to accept notice, coupled with an endorsement of "Left" and subsequent affixture on the outer door/grill in accordance with Order V Rule 17 of the CPC, constitutes valid service; deliberate avoidance of service cannot be used to defeat the judicial process. (Para 7, 8)
Issues: Whether the notice issued to the respondent-husband was duly and sufficiently served despite the postal endorsement "Left" and refusal by family members to accept the notice.
(B) Service of Summons - Refusal and Affixture - Conduct of Party - Refusal by family members to accept notice, coupled with an endorsement of "Left" and subsequent affixture on the outer door/grill in accordance with Order V Rule 17 of the CPC, constitutes valid service; deliberate avoidance of service cannot be used to defeat the judicial process. (Para 7, 8)
Issues: Whether the notice issued to the respondent-husband was duly and sufficiently served despite the postal endorsement "Left" and refusal by family members to accept the notice.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Niranjan Singh
For the Respondents: Ashok Das
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Niranjan Singh
For the Respondents: Ashok Das
Table of Contents
2. Presumptions of service under statutory provisions remain unrebutted absent evidence from the respondent. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. Once notice is sent to the correct address, due service is presumed unless the addressee proves otherwise. (Para 6 , 7 )
4. Held that notice upon the respondent was duly and sufficiently served. (Para 9 )
5. When does a presumption of due service arise under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act?
A presumption of service arises when a letter is properly addressed, prepaid, and posted by registered post to the correct address. (Para 6 )
6. What is the effect of refusal or avoidance of service by the addressee?
Refusal or deliberate avoidance of service constitutes valid service in the eye of the law, and the addressee cannot defeat service by remaining absent. (Para 6 , 7 )
7. What is the validity of service by affixture under Order V Rule 17 CPC?
Service by affixture on the outer door or conspicuous part of the house, after refusal or inability to serve personally, is a valid mode of service. (Para 7 )
8. Does an endorsement like 'Left' defeat service where the addressee avoids service?
No, endorsements such as 'Left' do not defeat service when read with other evidence of avoidance; valid service can still be presumed. (Para 6 , 7 )
ORDER
Order No. 06.04.2026 (Hybrid mode)
12. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This is an appeal filed by the appellant-wife challenging the judgment dated 18.05.2015 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur in C.P. No.218 of 2013, whereby the marriage between the
appellant-wife and respondent-husband was dissolved.
3. Earlier, notice was issued to the sole respondent- husband. It is submitted that the learned counsel who was appearing for the respondent has expired. Therefore, vide order dated 23.02.2026, fresh notice was directed to be issued through Speed Post with A.D. as well as through Special Messenger. The report of the Special Messenger reveals that upon visiting the residence of the respondent, the family members present refused to
Page 1 of 9
receive the notice and directed the messenger to return. Consequently, the notice was affixed on the door/grill of the house of the respondent in presence of two witnesses
and report to that effect has been submitted.
4. Delay and prolongation of the judicial process are largely attributable to the hindrances that occur in the service of summons/notices upon the parties. Quite often, we encounter situations where, even if notice is sent to the correct address, the postal endorsement leaves the matter in an ambiguous state, making the determination of sufficient service a debatable question. Hence, it is essential to examine the statutory provisions governing the service of summons/notices under different statutes and the manner in which judicial pronouncements have
strengthened those provisions.
5. Section 114 illustration (f) of the Indian Evidence Act permits the Court to presume that the common course of business has been followed in particular cases. In the context of postal communication, this provision enables the Court to presume that a letter, duly posted,
would have been delivered in the ordinary course.
Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, also contemplates a presumption of service when a document is properly addressed, prepaid and posted by registered post. For the convenience of ready reference,
the said provision is reproduced hereunder:-
Page 2 of 9
“27. Meaning of service by post.—Where any [Central Act] [Substituted by A.O.1937, for " Act of the Governor General-in-Council.] or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression serve or either of the expressions give or send or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of
post.”
It would be apt to rely on Ajeet Seeds Limited v. K. Gopala Krishnaiah , reported in 2014 (12) SCC 685, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that once notice is sent by registered post to the correct address, a presumption of service arises and the burden shifts upon the addressee to prove that it
was not served. It was held thus:-
“10. It is thus clear that Section 114 of the Evidence Act enables the Court to presume that in the common course of natural events, the communication would have been delivered at the address of the addressee. Section 27 of the GC Act gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has been effected when it is sent to the correct address by registered post. It is not necessary to aver in the complaint that in spite of the return of the notice unserved, it is deemed to have been served or that the addressee is deemed to have knowledge of the notice. Unless and until the contrary is proved by the addressee, service of notice is deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in
the ordinary course of business.”
Page 3 of 9
Further, Order VI Rule 14A CPC mandates that eve
