It is noteworthy that Order 5 Rules 17 and 19 remained untouched by the Amendments made by Act No.46 of 1999 and Act No.22 of 2002. Order 5 Rule 19 applies where the summon is returned under Rule 17 by the serving officer. Order 5 Rule 16 prescribes that where the serving officer delivers or tenders a copy of the summons to the defendant personally, or to an agent or other person on his behalf, he shall require the signature of the person to whom the copy is so delivered or tendered to an acknowledgment of service endorsed on the original summons. Evidently, the procedure prescribed under Order 5 Rules 16, 17 and 19 are in relation to service of summons through the process server. They do not apply to a case where in addition to normal mode of service through process server, the service is also effected by registered post, as in the instant case. In such cases, the presumption of service is made under Order 5 Rule 9 (5) CPC itself, which provides that where the summon is received back with an endorsement made by a postal employee that the defendant had refused to take delivery of the postal article, the court serving the summons shall declare that the summons had been duly served on the defendant. The law does not mandate that before relying upon the endorsement, the court has to examine the postman. It may be a different matter that the defendant, in order to rebut the presumption, may choose to examine the postman. In the instant case, the service of summons was
