made unsuccessful attempt to deliver the postal article to the addressee sent back the article to the sender with the endorsement ‘refused’. Section 114 illustration (e) of the Evidence Act says that Court shall presume that the act in discharge of official business was performed regularly. The petitioner since wishes the Court to believe that summon was never tendered to him either by the process server or by the postal peon, onus to prove the same was upon him under Section 103 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The petitioner could have examined both the process server and the postal peon to rebut the presumption, arising out of the endorsement on the postal envelope by the postal peon and from the declaration of the process server, duly endorsed by Nazir under Rule 19A of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Calcutta High Court. The petitioner has failed to discharge such onus. There is nothing to indicate that learned Trial Court did not comply with the provisions of Rule 6 of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure. The judgement pronounced in the case of Siba Prasad Saha (supra) on a factual matrix where no declaration duly verified was there, as envisaged in order V Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this case at hand, there is declaration as required to be made and such declaration was duly verified by Nazir. In the amended provision it is envisaged that where summon is returned under Rules 17, to the Court from which it was issued with a report endorsed thereon or annexed thereto stating, inter alia, that he has affixed the copy, the circumstances under which he did so, and the name and address of the person if any, by whom the house was identified and in whose presence the copy was affixed. Such declaration or statement if not verified then the Court may examine the serving office on oath. Even the Court can
