In Case Of Defects In Service Of Notice Mere Correction In Postal Envelopes Not Sufficient, Fresh Notice Must Be Issued: AP High Court

While hearing a review plea, the Andhra Pradesh High Court recently said that mere corrections in postal envelopes are insufficient to cure defects in service of notice, emphasizing that when an incorrect address is discovered, the proper course is to correct the address in the main proceedings and issue fresh notices.

In doing so the court said that the review petitioners had not been given an opportunity of hearing for want of proper service as the notice was served on incorrect address.

The case emerged from a dispute regarding the management of two societies - GUM Society and TAPP Society. The original petitioners had filed original petitions before the District Judge in Visakhapatnam, under Section 23 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001. They sought an inquiry into society management and challenged certain certified copies of renewals, alleging fraudulent procurement by the respondents.

While the matter was still pending before the District Judge, the respondents in the original petition filed an application contending that the original petitions were barred under Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. The District Court accepted this argument and the petition was dismissed.

This dismissal was challenged through two civil revision petitions before the High Court, wherein it was noted that the respondents had refused to accept notice. The court had allowed the civil revision petitions, ex-parte. A review was filed challenging the order passed in the civil revision petitions leading to the present case.

A single judge bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari in its order said, "A perusal of the registered notices sent to the review petitioners/respondents 1 to 3 in C.R.P(s), shows that in the address "3‟ was mentioned. In one registered post letter to respondent No.2, it was corrected by overwriting as "9‟, but as to when and by whom it was so done, is not evident. In respect to respondent No.3 also there is cutting and overwriting and in respect of respondent No.1(review petitioner No.1) "3‟ is mentioned. In any way, mere correction in postal envelopes would not be sufficient. Firstly, the address given in C.R.P(s) which mentioned "3‟ ought to have been got corrected and fresh notice ought to have been got issued at the correct address.”

The controversy in the present matter pertained to the service of notices in the CRPs. Senior Advocate K. Chidambaram, representing the review petitioners said that while their correct address was "Door No. 39-9-104/1-3, Sector-9, Muralinagar, Visakhapatnam," the CRP notices were sent to "Door No. 39-3-104/1-3."

The counsel appearing for the respondents, advocate Sanjay Suraneni, with respect to the service of notice produced postal tracking reports showing "Item Returned Refused".

The court however said that in address mentioned in the registered post letter sent to respondent No. 2, the number '3' had been overwritten as '9', but the timing and author of this correction remained unknown. Similarly there was overwriting found in the notice to respondent No. 3, while respondent No. 1's notice still showed '3' mentioned in the address.

After hearing both sides, the court found that the address of the respondent parties in the civil revision petitions differed from those mentioned in original petition of 2007.

"The address given is incorrect," the court said. It said that the address given in C.R.P(s) which mentioned "3‟ ought to have been got corrected and fresh notice ought to have been issued at the correct address.

The Court noted that while the registered letters were received back on February 23, only a tracking report was filed with the memo dated February 28, raising questions about the transparency of the service process.

It thereafter said, "This Court is satisfied that, the review petitioners had no opportunity of hearing in the C.R.P, for want of service. Unless the letter/notices were sent to the correct address, it could not be said that there was refusal by the correct person/party in C.R.P. There was no occasion for deemed service by refusal. The review petitioners were not heard in C.R.P(s). The order dated 18.06.2024 was thus passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, without opportunity of hearing to the review petitioners(respondents 1 to 3 in C.R.P(s)".

The order passed in the civil revision petitions was set aside and the pleas were directed to be listed under the caption of “admission/hearing” before the appropriate bench.

Case title: The Ancient Pattern Pentecostal Church (TAPPC SOCIETY) vs. Kilari Anand Paul

Review I.A.No.3 of 2024 in both the C.R.P.Nos. 242 of 2024 and 361 of 2024

Counsel for review petitioners: Senior advocate Sri K.Chidambaram along with advocates G.Yaswanth and Turaga Sai Surya

Counsel for respondents: Advocate Sai Sanjay Suraneni

Click Here To Read/Download Order