Smti. Maseena Bibi And ORS v. Smti. Hameeda Bibi And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CO/45/2025 Smti. Maseena Bibi and Others Vs.
Smti. Hameeda Bibi and Others Mr. Adarsh Ilango .... for the petitioners Ms. Aakansha Singh .... for the respondent No.3 Mr. K. M. B. Jayapal .... for the respondent No.7 August 28, 2025 [SR] Item No.5 The defendants in a suit for partition are the petitioners of the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The said suit being Title Suit No. 20 of 2018 was decreed in preliminary form. The petitioners aggrieved by the said decree have preferred the connected appeal being Title Appeal No.7 of 2024 pending before the learned District Judge at Port Blair.
In the said appeal, all the respondents except the respondent No. 1, opposite party No. 1, herein, have entered appearance.
The appeal Court below by the order No. 5 dated March 11, 2025 had directed the petitioners to take steps for service of summons upon the said non appearing respondent No. 1 as the Court was not satisfied with the service report. The appeal Court below by the order No. 31 dated June 11, 2025 has directed fresh service of summons through
process server and has kept the application of the petitioners under Order V Rule XX of Code of Civil Procedure pending. The petitioners are challenging the said order dated March 11, 2025 and June 11, 2025, inter alia, on the grounds that the track report of the summons sent through registered post to the respondent No. 1 since is showing that item has been delivered to the addressee, service should be held to be good and even if such service is not treated as such the application of the petitioners under Orde V Rule XX of the Code should have been allowed.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused materials on record.
The appeal Court below, in the order dated March 11, 2025 has recorded that the notice which was issued to the respondent No. 1 through both ways has returned unserved with a report of the postal department that the address of the addresses is in complete and the notice issued through Court is returned unserved with a report that the addressee has gone for work and she will return after the sunset.
The appeal Court though has recorded that on the last occasion learned counsel for the appellant has filed track report which is showing that the item has been delivered to the addressee/respondent No.1 but considering the entire facts and circumstances had directed the petitioners to take fresh steps to effect service of summons upon the respondent No. 1. The petitioners thereafter have filed an application under Order V Rule XX of the Code for substitute service of summons upon the said respondent.
The appeal Court thought it expedient to make a further attempt to serve such summons upon the said respondent through process server before resorting to Order V Rule XX of the Code.
Summons through the process server at the first attempt since could not be served, there is no difficulty to make a further attempt before resorting to Order V Rule XX of the Code which is an exception to the normal mode of service. Nonetheless, adherence to the procedures as contemplated under Order V Rule XVII of the Code in serving summons through process server are required to be strictly carried out. The orders impugned therefore do not suffer any illegality or infirmity warranting interference.
CO/45/2025 is thus disposed of, without any order as to costs.
Parties to act on the server copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of the judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
( Biswajit Basu, J. )