Deemed service by registered post upheld where notice reached the correct address and avoidance was reflected in postal remarks.

Registered notice sent to the correct address and returned with endorsements showing non-claim or avoidance supported a presumption of deemed service, and the absence of a separate order for substituted service did not defeat that presumption. The Court also treated the reference to deemed service on fewer respondents as an inadvertent clerical error that did not affect validity. Because the earlier judgment had been decided on merits, recall was not the proper remedy; review alone would lie on limited grounds. The recall application was therefore not maintainable and was rejected, leaving the earlier judgment undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether notice sent by registered post to the correct address could be treated as duly served despite the postal endorsements and return of covers. (ii) Whether a recall application was maintainable when the grievance was only about an inadvertent error in the order recording deemed service and the judgment had already been decided on merits.

Issue (i): Whether notice sent by registered post to the correct address could be treated as duly served despite the postal endorsements and return of covers.

Analysis: Notices were issued to the respondents at the correct addresses and the record showed repeated attempts at service. The returned covers and postal remarks indicated that the addressees had not claimed the notices and had avoided delivery. The Court applied the presumption arising from registered post service and relied on the principle that a correct address, coupled with postal intimation and absence of rebuttal, supports deemed service. The Court also held that the absence of a separate order for substituted service did not matter because the case was one of deemed service, not substituted service.

Conclusion: Notice was rightly treated as duly served on the respondents.

Issue (ii): Whether a recall application was maintainable when the grievance was only about an inadvertent error in the order recording deemed service and the judgment had already been decided on merits.

Analysis: The Court held that the reference in the earlier order to deemed service on respondent numbers 1 to 4 instead of 1 to 5 was only an inadvertent mistake and did not affect the validity of service or the resulting order. The Court further held that the judgment dated 20.12.2006 had been passed on merits, and the proper remedy against such a decision would be review on limited grounds, not recall. Since no case for restoration or recall was made out, the application could not succeed.

Conclusion: The recall application was not maintainable and was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the validity of deemed service and declined to reopen the merits decision by way of recall, leaving the earlier judgment undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where registered notice is sent to the correct address and the record shows avoidance or non-claim by the addressee, service may be presumed to be sufficient; an inadvertent clerical error in recording the number of persons deemed served does not invalidate the service or justify recall of a judgment decided on merits.

---