• Recovery of the money First appeal under Order 43 (1)(d) of the CPC is filed challenging the order of the court below by which the application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC of the appellant/defendant has been dismissed There were as many as three attempts made to serve the appellant/defendant. Also, the appellant/defendant is not justified in contending that the report of the postal department could also be forged on the registered cover as regards the refusal report on the postal covers. Also, in one of the process servers report detailed directions and location of the property of the appellant/defendant was given of all the four sides. Therefore, the appellant/defendant has been rightly found to be falsely stating that he was not served in the suit-Appeal stands dismissed
SATISH vs BAL FAO 224/17 19/05/17 [ Mehta JJ ]
[ DELHI HIGH COURT ]