Presumption of service by post stands when mere denial is unsupported and delay is not sufficiently explained.

Postal despatch of an order-in-original, when shown not to have been returned undelivered, supports a presumption of service under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. A bare denial of receipt, especially where unsupported by evidence from the consultant who obtained a copy of the order, is insufficient to displace that presumption. On those facts, the applicant failed to prove non-service and also failed to establish sufficient cause for delay, so condonation of delay was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant had rebutted the presumption of service of the order-in-original and shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Analysis: The order-in-original had been despatched to the applicant and the record showed that it was not returned undelivered. The applicant's bare denial, unsupported by evidence from the consultant who had sought and received a copy of the order, was found unreliable. On these facts, the presumption arising from service by post under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was held not to be displaced.

Conclusion: The applicant failed to rebut the presumption of service and failed to establish sufficient cause for delay; the application for condonation of delay was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A bare denial of receipt does not rebut the statutory presumption of service where postal despatch is proved and the surrounding evidence renders the denial unreliable.

---