-
by Admin
07 January 2026 4:15 PM
“Presumption of Service Arises When Summons Are Refused — Defendant Cannot Claim Ignorance After Avoiding Judicial Process”, Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the denial of an application to set aside an ex parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, firmly upholding the legal presumption that refusal to accept duly dispatched summons amounts to valid service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anish Dayal and Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre held that the defendant had failed to rebut the statutory presumption of service and had also not demonstrated "sufficient cause" for non-appearance — the two essential prongs for relief under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. The Court observed, "Refusal to accept judicial summons cannot be used as a shield against court proceedings — it is in fact a window into evasive conduct."
Long-Standing Business Deal Ends in Recovery Suit — Defendant Claims No Knowledge Despite Proof of Refusal
The suit arose from a commercial transaction between Ramesh Arora, a scrap dealer running M/s Nav Durga Metals, and Devender Kumar Sharma, proprietor of M/s Tirupati Udyog. The two parties were engaged in scrap trade for over fifteen years. According to the plaintiff, Sharma defaulted on payments, leaving a balance of ₹7,48,850, with the last part payment of ₹1 lakh made in October 2020.
Despite a legal notice served on 13th July 2022, Sharma neither responded nor cleared dues. The plaintiff filed a commercial recovery suit at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, where summons were dispatched to three known addresses of the defendant across Delhi and Sahibabad. While one address was reported to be demolished and another untraceable, summons at the third address were refused, per postal endorsements.
Summons through speed post and registered cover, supported by tracking reports, were shown to be delivered but returned with explicit remarks: “refused”. Notably, even the pre-litigation legal notice was shown to have been served at the same address, adding to the presumption of due service.
When the defendant failed to file a written statement or appear, the Trial Court decreed the suit ex parte on 25th April 2024, awarding the claimed amount along with interest. The defendant only approached the court after execution proceedings began, claiming ignorance of the decree.
Was Service Duly Effected? And Was There Sufficient Cause for Delay?
Two core legal questions arose before the High Court:
Arguing that he was never served, the appellant contended that he did not reside at the address where summons were allegedly refused and questioned the validity of the postal endorsements.
“Refusal Is Presumed Service” — Appellant Failed To Rebut Legal Presumption
The Bench dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that multiple tracking reports and postal endorsements of “refused” are not only conclusive under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, but also attract the presumption under Sections 101 and 114(f) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Parimal v. Veena, (2011) 3 SCC 545, the Court reiterated:
“There is presumption of service of a letter sent under registered cover, if the same is returned back with a postal endorsement that the addressee refused to accept the same. No doubt the presumption is rebuttable… The burden to rebut the presumption lies on the party, challenging the factum of service.”
Similarly, in Vishwabandhu v. Sri Krishna, (2021) 19 SCC 549, the Apex Court clarified that once refusal is recorded, service is deemed to be complete.
The High Court noted that:
“Tracking reports dated 25th October 2023 of both speed post and registered post show clear endorsement of ‘refusal’. In the absence of any rebuttal by credible evidence, service must be held to be duly effected.”
The Court also dismissed the defendant’s assertion that the address was incorrect, observing that the same address had been used in the legal notice, and that the defendant himself listed the Sahibabad address in his affidavit before the Court.
Delay Was Unexplained and Reflects Negligence, Not Sufficient Cause
Turning to the 43-day delay in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, the Court found no “sufficient cause” to condone the lapse. The defendant claimed to have discovered the ex parte decree only during execution, but failed to show bona fide conduct or diligence prior to that.
Relying again on Parimal v. Veena, the Court held:
“Sufficient cause cannot be established where the conduct of the defendant reflects negligence, want of bona fides, or inactivity. The present case falls squarely within this prohibited category.”
The Bench emphasized that "technicalities should not defeat substantial justice", but only where genuine causes are made out — which was not the case here.
“Refusal Is Not a Defence, It’s Dereliction” — Ex Parte Decree Stands, Appeal Dismissed
Concluding that neither of the two statutory grounds under Order IX Rule 13 CPC were satisfied — namely, improper service or sufficient cause — the High Court affirmed the Trial Court’s ex parte decree and dismissed the appeal. The Court recorded:
“In view of the above, the appeal stands dismissed. Pending applications are rendered infructuous.”
Willful Avoidance of Summons Has Consequences — Statutory Presumptions Cannot Be Displaced Casually
This judgment reinforces a significant procedural doctrine: a litigant cannot escape judicial proceedings by simply refusing to accept summons. When multiple modes of service reflect refusal, courts are justified in drawing a legal presumption of service — a presumption that requires strong, credible evidence to rebut, not mere denials or vague assertions.
It also sends a strong message to defendants who attempt to delay or obstruct court proceedings by staying passive until execution: inaction, when coupled with lack of bona fides, cannot be excused as “sufficient cause.”
Date of Decision: 28 November 2025
