While hearing a review ground, the Andhra Pradesh High Court recently said that mere corrections of postal envelopes are insufficient to remedy defects in service of notice, pointing out that when an incorrect address is discovered, the correct remedy is to correct the address in the main action . and issue new notifications.

In doing so, the court said that the revision petitioners were not given an opportunity of being heard due to lack of proper communication as the notice was served on an incorrect address.

The case arose as a result of a dispute regarding the management of two companies – GUM Company and TAPP Company. The original petitioners filed original petitions before the District Judge, Visakhapatnam, under Section 23 of the AP Companies Registration Act, 2001. They sought an inquiry into the management of the company and challenged certain certified copies of the renewals, alleging fraudulent purchases of to the defendants.

While the matter was still pending before the District Judge, the respondents in the original petition filed an application contending that the original applications were barred under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court accepted this argument and the application was dismissed.

This dismissal was challenged by two civil review applications in the High Court, where it was held that the respondents had refused to accept notice. The court granted the applications for civil review, ex parte. A review was brought by challenging the order made in the civil review applications which gave rise to the present case.

A single bench of judges Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari in his order he said: “A perusal of the notices on record sent to the revision petitioners/respondents 1 to 3 in the CRP(s), shows that at the address ‘3’ has been mentioned. In a registered letter addressed to respondent No.2, it was corrected by overwriting as ‘9’, but when and by whom it was so done is not apparent. Regarding respondent no. 3, there is also cutting and overwriting, and as regards respondent no. 1 (Revision Petitioner No. 1) is referred to as ‘3’. In any case, simply correcting the postal envelopes would not be enough. Firstly, the address shown in the CRP(s) mentioning ‘3’ should have been corrected and a new notice should have been issued to the correct address.”

The controversy in this matter referred to the transmission of notices in the CRP. Senior advocate K. Chidambaram, representing the revision petitioners, said that though their correct address was “Door no. 39-9-104/1-3, Sector-9, Muralinagar, Visakhapatnam”, the CRP notices were sent to “Door no. 39-3-104/1-3.”

Counsel appearing for the respondents, Advocate Sanjay Suraneni, in respect of service of notice produced postal tracking reports showing “Returned Item Refused”.

The court specified, however, that at the address mentioned in the registered letter sent to the respondent no. 2, the number “3” was overwritten with “9”, but the time and the author of this correction remained unknown. Similarly, overwriting was found in the notice addressed to respondent no. 3, while in the opinion of the respondent no. 1 still mentioned “3” mentioned in the address.

After hearing both parties, the court found that the address of the respondents in the civil review applications differed from those mentioned in the original 2007 application.

“The address given is incorrect“, the court said. It said that the address given in the CRP(s) mentioning ‘3’ should have been corrected and a fresh notice should have been issued to the correct address.

The court noted that while the registered letters were received back on February 23, only a follow-up report was filed with the note dated February 28, raising questions about the transparency of the service process.

Then he said, “The Court is convinced that the revision petitioners did not have the opportunity to be heard in the CRP, due to lack of service. Unless the letter/notices were sent to the correct address, it cannot be said that there was a refusal by the correct person/party in the CRP. The revision petitioners were not heard in the CRP(s). The order of 18.06.2024 was thus pronounced in violation of the principles of natural justice, without the possibility of hearing the review petitions (intimations 1 to 3 in CRP(s)“.

The order passed in the civil revision petitions was set aside and the pleadings were directed to be listed under the heading “admission/hearing” before the competent court.

Case title: Old Model Pentecostal Church (TAPPC SOCIETY) vs. Kilari Anand Paul

Review IANo.3 of 2024 in both CRPNs. 242 of 2024 and 361 of 2024

Counsel for Revision Petitioners: Senior Advocate Sri K.Chidambaram with Advocates G.Yaswanth and Turaga Sai Surya

Counsel for the respondents: Advocate Sai Sanjay Suraneni

Click here to read/download the order