Umesh Kumar vs Smt. Saroj Sharma And Another
2017 Latest Caselaw 6226 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 37
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3014 of 2009
 

 
Appellant :- Umesh Kumar
 
Respondent :- Smt. Saroj Sharma And Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Anurag Sharma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- S.K.Mehrotra,Sushil Kumar Mehrotra
 

 
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

The report endorsed on the reverse side of the notice issued to the respondent no. 1 which is dated 15.12.2009 indicates that notices were attempted to be served on the first respondent who was not available when the process server went on the given address to serve the notice but the said service is also not witnessed by any person on the spot. In these circumstances, it will not be appropriate to presume that service of the notice is complete on the respondent no. 1.

Even otherwise from the impugned judgment, we find that the respondent no. 1 was first to be served through publication but she did not appear before the Tribunal as well. Since the liability is likely to be fastened on the respondent no. 1, as it is indicated in the judgment that the vehicle was not insured, then in that event that it would be appropriate that another attempt is made to serve the respondent no. 1 at the correct address.

The appellant may therefore, take fresh steps while providing two separate envelops to the office for sending the notice by Registered Post/AD at both the addresses of the respondent no. 1 as disclosed in the array of the parties.

In addition to the aforesaid the appellant may also undertake steps to serve the respondent no. 1 personally outside the Court for which Dasti summons shall issue.

Let steps be taken, accordingly, within two weeks.

The matter shall be listed after three weeks, after report of service is furnished in this regard on the respondent no. 1.

Order Date :- 2.11.2017

Ishan