Rajendra Singh Kauraw Through Power Of ... vs Raghvendra Singh Choudhary
2025 Latest Caselaw 7105 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rajendra Singh Kauraw Through Power Of ... vs Raghvendra Singh Choudhary on 25 June, 2025

Author: Vishal Dhagat

Bench: Vishal Dhagat

         NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27423




                                                              1                                MP-2991-2025
                              IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT JABALPUR
                                                         BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
                                                    ON THE 25th OF JUNE, 2025
                                                 MISC. PETITION No. 2991 of 2025
                             RAJENDRA SINGH KAURAW THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY
                                       HOLDER JITENDRA SINGH KAURAW
                                                   Versus
                                  RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHOUDHARY AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                                   Shri Dushyant Singh - Advocate for petitioner.
                                   Shri Amit Kumar Sharma - Government Advocate for State.

                                                                  ORDER

Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging order dated 29/04/2025 contained in Annexure P-5, wherein First Appellate Court has dismissed the application filed under Section 151 of CPC.

2. Application was filed that since registered notices sent to respondent No.1 was returned with endorsement unclaimed, therefore, said endorsement

be taken to be service of notice on respondent No.1. Reliance is also placed upon judgment passed by Apex Court in case of Priyanka Kumari Vs. Shailendra Kumar in Transfer Petition (s) (Civil) No.2090/2019. It is submitted that trial Court has committed error in dismissing the application. Server went to serve the registered notices, but doors were not opened and said notice was unclaimed, therefore, same will be taken to be refusal. Trial Court has wrongly dismissed the application on ground that unclaimed

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27423

2 MP-2991-2025

envelop cannot be taken to be refusal on part of party, therefore, same cannot be treated to be service of notices and application was dismissed. It is further submitted that no purpose will be served on issuing notice to respondent No.1 since he is not appearing before the trial Court and avoiding service. Other respondents are not necessary for adjudication of this case.

3. Heard counsel for petitioner.

4. Relevant paragraphs of order passed by Apex Court in case of Priyanka Kumari (supra) are quoted as under :-

"It has been observed that Registry mentions in the office report that where the notice is returned as 'refusal', is complete/proper service, whereas when it is returned as 'unclaimed', is not proper service/incomplete service.

In the opinion of this Court, it. is not proper and correct. The word 'refusal' can be interpreted in synonymous to the word "unclaimed". As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decisions, when a notice is served to the proper address of the addressee, it shall be deemed to be served unless contrary is proved. Thus, when the notice is returned as unclaimed, it shall be deemed to be served and it is proper service, Therefore, service of notice to the sole respondent which has returned as unclaimed is considered as deemed to be served but none has entered appearance."

5. Considering aforesaid order of Apex Court it is found that trial Court has committed an error in not allowing the application under Section 151 of CPC. Registered notice was sent to the address, where noticee was living. He did not open the door and thereafter endorsement has been made on the registered letter, therefore, unclaimed notice is to be taken as refusal.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27423

3 MP-2991-2025 Same has also been held by Apex Court in case of Priyanka Kumari (supra).

6. Considering the same, petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 29/04/2025 contained in Annexure P-5 is set aside. Respondent No.1 Raghvendra Singh Choudhary before the appellate Court is taken to be served. Appellate Court is directed to proceed further in appeal.

7. In view of above, petition is disposed off.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE

as