In CWP-9230-2022-PUNJ HC-Refusal to receive summons amounts to valid service, says Punjab & Haryana HC Justice Sudhir Mittal [11-05-2022]

Read Order: Davinder Singh and others  v. Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh and others

Monika  Rahar

Chandigarh, May 16, 2022:  The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently held that refusal to receive summons amounts to valid service. 

The Bench of Justice Sudhir Mittal, while terming contention of the petitioner’s Counsel (suggesting otherwise) as “misconceived”, added that issuance of fresh notices themselves was not necessary in the case as the report of refusal to accept summons was on record.

In the instant case, the petitioners were parties in an application for partition of joint land. 

Allegedly, the partition proceedings were concluded without effecting service upon them and, thus, the sanad was challenged by way of an appeal. The appeal was dismissed as being not maintainable and, thus, a revision petition was filed before the Financial Commissioner.

The said revision petition was rejected by recording a finding that service was in fact effected upon the petitioners as service is deemed to have been effected if there was a report of refusal.

It was the case of the petitioner’s counsel that on August 27, 2010 the report of refusal of summons was in fact given but thereafter fresh notices were issued. 

Whether service was effected after fresh notices were issued or not was not evident from the record, the Court argued while also contending that therefore, the Financial Commissioner was in error in rejecting the revision petition.

The Court, after considering the afore-said submissions, observed that the argument of the petitioner’s counsel was misconceived. 

Elaborating upon this observation, the Court expounded that even if there was no report on the record regarding fresh notices issued to the petitioners, issuance of fresh notices themselves was not necessary as a report of refusal is on record and that refusal to receive summons amounts to valid service.
Thus, the Court held that the order of the Financial Commissioner could not be faulted. The Writ Petition was therefore dismissed.