New Delhi: The Punjab and Haryana high court has observed that if an individual refuses to receive a summons in a case, it can be presumed that the summons had been validly served to them.
Moreover, the bench of Justice Sudhir Mittal observed that this would hold even if a fresh notice had been issued in the case; that is, it would be presumed that the individual had been validly served on the basis of the original report of refusal, even if subsequent fresh notices are issued in the case, the Times of India reported.
Case background
The bench’s decision came while hearing an appeal by one Devender Singh and others from Punjab who were parties to an application for the division of a piece of land.
The parties had first approached a revenue court with an appeal in which they claimed that the proceedings of the division of land had been concluded without the said petitioners being validly served the sanad (deed) in the matter.
The petitioners challenged the deed itself. However, the revenue court had determined that the application was not maintainable and had dismissed it.
Thereafter, the petitioners filed a revision petition (an application to correct a mistake by a subordinate authority) before the concerned financial commissioner.
Also read: How the Story of the Greatest Rivalry of the Supreme Court Unfolded
However, the financial commissioner deemed that the petitioners had been validly served on the basis of the report of refusal from the original summons, and thus dismissed the revision petition.
Thus, the petitioners moved the Punjab and Haryana high court for relief. The counsel for the petitioners conceded that there was, in fact, a report of refusal given on August 27, 2010; however, they argued that fresh notices were issued in the case thereafter.
As such, the petitioner’s counsel contended that the record does not make it evident that the petitioners had been validly served after the fresh notices had been issued, thus arguing that the financial commissioner was wrong in dismissing the revision petition.
The court, however, called their argument “misconceived” and ruled that even though the record shows no report regarding fresh notices being issued to the petitioners, this was not necessary given that the original report of refusal was on record.
The bench dismissed the petition.
