Orissa HC: Refusal to Accept Notice and Postal Endorsement “Left” Together Constitute Valid Service

The Orissa High Court held in a matrimonial appeal that a respondent's family refusing notice and a “Left” postal endorsement together establish duly served notice under CPC and the General Clauses Act.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, comprising Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra, ruled on 6 April 2026 that notice upon the sole respondent in a matrimonial appeal had been duly and sufficiently served. The respondent's family had refused to receive the notice at the door, prompting the Special Messenger to affix it on the outer door grill in the presence of two witnesses. Simultaneously, the Speed Post consignment was returned with the endorsement “Left.” The bench held that both events, read together under Order V Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and Section 114 illustration (f) of the Indian Evidence Act, established an unrebutted presumption of valid service. The matter was directed to be listed for hearing on 4 May 2026.

The Matrimonial Appeal and the Service Problem

The appeal arises from a judgment dated 18 May 2015 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur in C.P. No. 218 of 2013, by which the marriage between the appellant-wife, Smt. Sunita Nayak, and the respondent-husband, Anup Kumar Tota, was dissolved. The appellant-wife challenged that dissolution before the Orissa High Court.

Service on the respondent became the immediate obstacle. Notice had earlier been issued, but the advocate who had been appearing for the respondent passed away. Vide order dated 23 February 2026, fresh notice was directed to be issued through Speed Post with acknowledgement due as well as through Special Messenger.

When the Special Messenger visited the respondent's residence, the family members present refused to accept the notice and asked the messenger to leave. The messenger then affixed the notice on the door grill of the house in the presence of two witnesses and submitted a report to that effect. The Speed Post article, on the other hand, was returned with the postal endorsement “Left.”

The bench recorded the Special Messenger's report verbatim: the family members of the sole respondent were present at home but did not receive the notice and said “you return the notice,” following which the notice was affixed by the messenger in the presence of two witnesses, with a photocopy attached to the door grill.

Statutory Framework the Bench Examined

The bench surveyed the interplay of several provisions before applying them to the facts.

Section 114 illustration (f) of the Indian Evidence Act permits a court to presume that the common course of business has been followed in particular cases. In the postal context, this allows a court to presume that a duly posted letter was delivered in the ordinary course.

Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 goes further: where any Central Act or Regulation authorises or requires a document to be served by post, service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, and — unless the contrary is proved — to have been effected at the time the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

Order VI Rule 14A CPC requires every pleading to contain an address for service, which becomes the proper address for effecting service of all processes. A party cannot later avoid service by remaining absent or unavailable at that address.

Order V Rule 9(5) CPC provides that where a summons is properly addressed, prepaid and sent by registered post acknowledgement due, the court may declare it duly served notwithstanding non-receipt of the acknowledgement, if the court is satisfied the addressee is deliberately avoiding service. The provision extends to situations where the postal article is returned with an endorsement that the defendant refused to take delivery.

Order V Rule 17 CPC is the provision that directly governs what a serving officer must do when a defendant or the defendant's agent refuses to sign the acknowledgement or cannot be found. The officer is empowered to affix a copy of the summons on the outer door or a conspicuous part of the house in which the defendant ordinarily resides, and then return the original to the court with a report. Order V Rule 19 CPC enables the court to treat such affixture, upon due compliance and report, as valid service.

Supreme Court Precedents Applied

The bench drew on two lines of Supreme Court authority.

From Ajeet Seeds Limited v. K. Gopala Krishnaiah, reported in (2014) 12 SCC 685, the bench relied on the proposition that once notice is sent by registered post to the correct address, a presumption of service arises and the burden shifts to the addressee to prove it was not served. The court in that case held that Section 114 of the Evidence Act enables a presumption that in the common course of natural events the communication would have been delivered, and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act gives rise to a presumption that service has been effected when the notice is sent to the correct address by registered post. It is not necessary to aver that service is deemed to have occurred; unless the contrary is proved by the addressee, service is deemed effected at the time the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of business.

The bench also distilled principles from Madan & Co. v. Wazir Jaivir Chand, (1989) 1 SCC 264, and C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed, (2007) 6 SCC 555. Those principles, as summarised by the bench, are:

• Where a notice is properly addressed, prepaid and sent by registered post, the sender is deemed to have discharged the legal obligation.
• Upon dispatch, a presumption of due service arises under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, and actual receipt by the addressee is not always necessary.
• Refusal to accept notice or conduct indicating deliberate avoidance amounts to valid and sufficient service in the eye of law.
• Endorsements such as “not found”, “not in station”, “addressee has left”, “not available in the house”, “house locked” or “shop closed” do not defeat service. Where a registered letter addressed to the correct address is returned, it can be attributed to the addressee's own conduct.
• Once the notice is sent by registered post to the correct address, due service must be presumed unless the contrary is proved by the addressee.
• The requirement of service must be interpreted practically, and an addressee cannot defeat service by remaining absent or failing to make arrangements to receive communications.

How the Bench Reasoned on the Facts

Applying those principles, the bench found that the appellant had taken all reasonable steps. Notice was sent through Speed Post at the correct address and also through Special Messenger. The Special Messenger's report established that family members of the respondent refused to accept the notice, following which it was affixed on the residence in the presence of witnesses. The Speed Post article was returned with the endorsement “Left.”

The bench held that affixture in these circumstances is expressly recognised under Order V Rule 17 CPC and, upon due compliance and reporting, constitutes valid service. The “Left” endorsement, read together with the family members' refusal and the affixture, indicated that the respondent was avoiding service. The bench referenced Madan & Co. v. Wazir Jaivir Chand to the effect that such conduct cannot be permitted to defeat the process of law.

The bench further observed that no material had been placed on record by the respondent to rebut the statutory presumptions arising under Section 114 illustration (f) of the Evidence Act and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. There was no explanation of absence, no denial of the address, and no effort to contest the mode or manner of service. In the absence of any rebuttal, the presumptions operated with full force in favour of valid service.

The bench noted that the appellant had not only dispatched notice to the correct address but had also taken the additional steps of personal service through a Special Messenger and affixture. That conduct demonstrated due diligence. The respondent's conduct, by contrast, reflected a clear attempt to avoid service. The court held that the case fell squarely within the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court and the statutory framework governing service of notice, and that the presumption of due service stood firmly established and remained unrebutted.

Order

The bench declared that notice upon the sole respondent, Anup Kumar Tota, had been duly and sufficiently served. The matter was directed to be listed on 4 May 2026 for hearing of the matrimonial appeal.