Dismissed¶8

Anish Anand v. Ashok Kumar Sinha

Delhi HC10 Nov 2025FAO/400/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Service of summons; refusal of summons at both plaint addresses; process server report; pasting of summons at outer gate; false postal endorsement allegation; presumption of regularity of official acts; setting aside ex-parte decree; Order 9 Rule 13 CPC; appeal under Sections 96 and 151 CPC; execution notice accepted at same address; FAO 400/2018; Delhi High Court; recovery suit Rs. 3,70,900/-; ADJ Tis Hazari; respondent unrepresented.

What did the court decide?

Summons were issued to both addresses of the appellant/defendant given in the plaint and were refused; the appellant had no case that those addresses were wrong, incomplete or not his addresses, and he was therefore rightly set ex-parte and the matter proceeded with. ¶5

Anish Anand Vs Ashok Kumar Sinha — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court correctly held that summons were duly served on the appellant/defendant and rightly declined to set aside the ex-parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, notwithstanding the appellant's plea that summons were never served and that reports of refusal were falsely procured.

¶2

Ratio / Principle

¶5

Key takeaways

The process server (Sh. Parveen Yadav) deposed that on 03.07.2012, at H-303, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi-60, the mother of defendant Anish Anand met him and refused to receive the summons on the defendant's behalf, whereupon, as per the court's directions, he pasted a copy of the summons at the outer gate of the premises (report Ex. CW-1/A).ratio¶5
Official acts are presumed to have been performed correctly and regularly unless otherwise shown; there were no materials to even probabilise the contention that the postal endorsement of refusal was false. Summons were taken by all permissible modes, the record shows service in fact occurred, and the allegations in the application to the contrary were apparently false/incorrect.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (FAO 400/2018, decided 10.11.2025, Chandrasekharan Sudha, J) dismissed an appeal under Sections 96 and 151 CPC against the judgment dated 23.02.2015 in Civil Suit No. 140/2011 (recovery of Rs. 3,70,900/- with interest) and the order dated 06.10.2016 by the learned ADJ (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, rejecting the defendant's application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex-parte decree. Summons sent to both addresses given in the plaint were refused; the process server deposed that the defendant's mother refused the summons at H-303, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi-60 and a copy was pasted at the outer gate per the court's directions. Applying the presumption that official acts are performed correctly and regularly, and noting the absence of any material to probabilise the plea of a false postal endorsement, and that execution-stage notice was accepted at the same plaint addresses, the Court held service was duly effected, found no infirmity in the impugned order, and dismissed the appeal sans merit; pending application(s) stand closed. Respondent unrepresented.

¶1

$~47

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO 400/2018 & CM APPLs. 6463/2017, 15070/2017 ANISH ANAND .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate

¶4

versus

¶5

ASHOK KUMAR SINHA .....Respondent Through: None.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 10.11.2025

¶10

The present appeal has been filed under Sections 96 and

¶11

151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (the CPC) seeking to set

¶12

aside the impugned judgment dated 23.02.2015 in Civil Suit No.

¶13

140/2011 and order dated 06.10.2016 in M No. 61215/2016 filed

¶14

under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC passed by the learned ADJ (Central),

¶15

Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

¶16

The facts in brief are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,70,900/- along with interest against the appellant/defendant. According to the appellant/defendant summons was never served on him. He came to know of the

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/11/2025 at 12:20:40

¶19

decree only when the notice in the execution petition was served on him. The report of the process server to the effect that summons was refused to be accepted by appellant/defendant is false. The respondent/plaintiff in connivance with the officials of the postal department obtained a false report that the appellant/defendant refused to accept the summons. As summons was never served on the appellant/defendant, the trial court went wrong in finding otherwise and dismissing the application filed for setting aside the ex-parte decree.

¶20

There is no representation on behalf of the respondent.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/defendant.

¶22

In the plaint, two addresses of the appellant/defendant have been given. Summons were sent to both the said addresses. Summons issued to both the addresses were refused to be accepted. Hence, the appellant/defendant was set ex-parte by the trial court and the matter was proceeded with. The

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/11/2025 at 12:20:40

¶25

appellant/defendant has no case that the addresses referred to in the plaint are wrong/incomplete or that they are not his addresses. The statement of the process server at Page No.176 of the appeal, i.e., Annexure A-9, reads thus: -

¶26

“Suit No. 140/11

¶27

Statement of Sh. Parveen Yadav S/o Sh. Mohar Singh Yadav, Process Server, E. Code 10254, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi

¶28

On SA

¶29

I was handed over summons of defendant Anish Anand for service. On 3.07.2012 I visited at the given address i.e H-303, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi-60 where the mother of defendant Anish Anand met and refused to receive the summons as the defendant is not at home and will accept the summons. As per directions of this hon'ble court I pasted the copy of the summon at the outer gate of the premises . In this regard my report is Ex. CW-l/A which bears my signatures at Point A & B and which is correct.”

¶30

(emphasis supplied)

¶31

The appellant/defendant has also a case that the

¶32

endorsement by the postal authority concerned that the summons

¶33

served by post was refused to be accepted is a false report which the respondent/plaintiff managed to obtain from the postal

¶34

This is a digitally signed order.

¶35

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/11/2025 at 12:20:40

¶36

department. There are no materials whatsoever on record to even probabilise the said contention of the appellant/defendant. Official acts are presumed to have been performed correctly and regularly unless otherwise shown. Summons is seen taken by all permissible modes. The materials on record show that summons was in fact served and the allegations in the application to the contrary is apparently false/incorrect. Moreover, it also needs to be noted that notice served to the appellant/defendant in the execution proceedings was accepted by him in the very same addresses shown in the plaint.

¶37

In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the impugned order, calling for an interference by this Court.

¶38

The appeal sans merit is thus dismissed. Application(s) if

¶39

any pending, shall stand closed.

¶40

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J

¶41

NOVEMBER 10, 2025 p’ma

¶42

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/11/2025 at 12:20:40

Anish Anand v. Ashok Kumar Sinha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anish Anand v. Ashok Kumar Sinha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Dembla Vs Rajinder Singh and Ors.

Mukesh Kumar Vs Anil Kumar

Chawal Singh Vs Rajbir Singh

Prakash Taneja Vs Anurag Budhwar

Vidya Sinha Vs M/S Center for Equity Studies

Sh Surya Prakash Gupta Vs N.S. Chahal and Ors.