) #15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.R.P. 115/2008 & CM 10277/2008 % KANSAL & ASSOCIATES Through versus ARADHANA ASSOCIATES & ORS Through CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN ORDER 24.02.2009 ..... Petitioner Mr. Saleem Hasan with Mr. Dilip Arya, Advocates ..... Respondents Mr. Arvind Kumar with Mr. Sohan Sharma, Advocates for R-3. Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocate for R-10. Present petition has been filed seeking to set aside order dated 26th Aprit 2008 passed by Additional District Judge whereby respondents' application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC was allowed. Learned Counsel for petitioner has drawn my attention to a registered AID card which was sent by the Registry of this Court and received back by the Registry on 2 pt April, 1997. Though he admits that the said registered AID card does not bear signature of respondent no. 3, he states that receipt of AID card by the Registry shows that respondent no. 3 had been served. :- Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified ·- Learned Counsel for petitioner further refers to orders passed by the joint Registrar on 2Pt Aprit 1997 as well as lOth October_ 2001 wherein it has been recorded that respondent no. 3 stands served and his right to file written statement has been closed. However, I am of the opinion that the aforesaid orders passed by the ] oint Registrar are only based on receipt of a registered AID card by the Registry of this Court. But, in my view, as admittedly the registered AID card is unsigned by the respondent no. 3, it cannot be construed as service of summons on respondent no. 3. It is pertinent to mention that there is no report of refusal of summons by said respondent no. 3. Consequently, in my view trial court has committed no illegality or irrationality in allowing respondent no. 3's application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC and the impugned order calls for no interference under Article 2 2 7 jurisdiction. With the aforesaid observations, present petition and pending application are dismissed but with no order as to costs. FEBRUARY 24, 2009 rn MANMO"Bl\N,J :-