Juthalal v Ramji and Another (Civil Case No. 340 of 1928) [1928] EACA 8 (1 January 1928)

## ORIGINAL CIVIL.

Before SIR JACOB BARTH. C. J.

## KAMESHWAR JUTHALAL 9).

## AMRATLAL RAMJI AND ANOTHER. C. C. $340/1928$ .

Civil Procedure Rules 1927-Order 5, Rule 27. Service where defendant resides out of the Colonv.

$Held:$ —That where the summons is sent by registered post and the defendant refuses acceptance of the letter the service is good.

Hopley for plaintiff.

ORDER.—The plaintiff obtained leave to serve the defendant in Uganda under Order V. r. 27.

The summons was sent by registered post in accordance with the provisions of the rule. The registered cover was delivered by the post, one may assume, cf. Sec. 16, Evidence Act, to the defendant at Tororo who refused acceptance. The letter was returned by the postal authorities to the Registrar of this Court where it was received on 1st October, 1927. The envelope is marked "refused" "return to sender."

Mr. Hopley for the plaintiff has contended that the service is good. He cites the provisions of Order V, r. 15 as an analogy, arguing that the tender of the envelope is sufficient. The plaintiff's advocate's office had advertised the fact that the envelope contained some document from the Court by putting "From Registrar, Sup. Crt. NRB " on it.

In my opinion the defendant had every opportunity of receiving the summons and the facts constitute a good service. The provisions for service by registered post would become a dead letter if by merely refusing to accept the registered packet the defendant could avoid service.