IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Appeal No. 120 of 2009 Sunder Singh Mehta ….…… Appellant Versus Vidya Mehta ………. Respondent Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Suresh Chandra Bhatt, Advocate for the respondent. Date of Judgment: 17.03.2011 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) The postal packet, containing the summons, sent to the respondent returned with the remark “unclaimed”. Proceeding on the basis that the same was sufficient service, an ex parte decree was awarded on 29th August, 2008. After the respondent came to learn that such an ex parte decree has been awarded, she applied for recalling of the said decree on the ground that the same was awarded without giving an opportunity to her to contest the claim in the suit. When the matter was considered, learned Judge recorded a finding that postal endorsement pertaining to service has not been made. In other words, the finding was that while the postal packet came back with the remark “unclaimed”, the postal authority did not record that the same was tendered, no one was there to accept the same and, accordingly, an intimation slip had been left for the addressee to collect the postal packet from the post office. 2. Appellant in the present appeal is not contesting the same. That being the situation, although when a postal packet returns with the postal remark “unclaimed”, the same may be treated to be duly served, but in the absence of an endorsement on the postal packet itself that the postal authority, upon failing to serve the postal packet, left an intimation for the recipient that such postal packet may be collected from the postal office, it cannot be deemed that service was effected, when the postal packet only contains an endorsement to the effect unclaimed. 2 3. That being the situation, there is no scope of interference. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 17.03.2011 17.03.2011 Amit