The Orissa High Court has reiterated that a party cannot frustrate judicial proceedings by deliberately avoiding court notices. Hearing a matrimonial appeal, the Division Bench held that where notices are sent to the correct address, refused by family members, and subsequently affixed at the residence in accordance with law, service of notice is deemed to be valid.
Background of the Case
The appeal was filed by the wife challenging a Family Court judgment dated May 18, 2015, which had dissolved the marriage. During the appellate proceedings, the respondent's earlier counsel had passed away, prompting the High Court to issue fresh notices through Speed Post and a Special Messenger.
According to the Special Messenger's report, family members present at the respondent's residence declined to accept the notice and asked the messenger to take it back. The notice was thereafter affixed to the outer door of the residence in the presence of two witnesses. Meanwhile, the Speed Post article was returned with the postal endorsement stating "Left."
Court's Observations
The Bench of Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra examined the legal principles governing service of summons and notices under the Code of Civil Procedure, the Indian Evidence Act, and the General Clauses Act. The Court also relied on several Supreme Court decisions dealing with the presumption of service by post.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Referring to the statutory framework, the Bench observed that once a notice is properly addressed, prepaid, and dispatched through registered post, the law raises a presumption that it has been duly served unless the recipient proves otherwise. The Court noted that refusal to receive a notice or conduct indicating deliberate avoidance cannot be used to defeat the judicial process.
The Bench observed,
“The presumption of due service stands firmly established and remains unrebutted.”
The judges further noted that the appellant had taken every reasonable step to ensure service, including postal delivery, personal service through a Special Messenger, and affixture at the respondent's residence after refusal. Since no material had been produced to rebut the legal presumption of service, the Court found no reason to doubt the validity of the notice.
Decision
Holding that the statutory requirements had been fully complied with, the High Court ruled that notice upon the respondent had been duly and sufficiently served.
The Court accordingly directed that the matrimonial appeal be listed for hearing on May 4, 2026.
Case Details
Case Title: Smt. Sunita Nayak v. Anup Kumar Tota
Case Number: MATA No. 154 of 2015
Judge: Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra
Decision Date: 06 April 2026
