While considering a review petition, the Andhra Pradesh High Court recently said that mere corrections in postal envelopes are not enough to cure defects in service, pointing out that when an incorrect address is discovered, the correct course of action is to correct the address in the main proceedings. and issue new opinions.

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

The case arose out of a dispute over the management of two societies – the GUM Society and the TAPP Society. The original petitioners had filed original petitions before the District Judge, Visakhapatnam, under Section 23 of the AP Societies Registration Act, 2001. They requested an investigation into the company’s management and challenged certain certified copies of renewals, alleging fraudulent purchases by the defendants.

While the case was still pending before the District Judge, the respondents in the original petition filed a motion asserting that the original petitions were inadmissible under Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The district court accepted this argument and the motion was denied.

This dismissal was challenged by two civil review petitions in the High Court, in which it was noted that the respondents had refused to accept notice. The court had granted the civil review petitions, ex parte. A review was filed challenging the order passed in the civil review petitions leading to the present case.

A single judge bench composed of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari in his order it was said: “A perusal of the registered notices sent to the petitioners/respondents in revision 1 to 3 in the CRP(s), shows that in the address “3” was mentioned. In a registered letter addressed to respondent No. 2, it was corrected by overwriting as follows: “9”, but it is not clear when and by whom this was done. In respect of defendant No.3, there is also cutting and crushing and in respect of defendant No.1 (revision petitioner No.1), ‘3’ is mentioned. In any case, a simple correction in the postal envelopes would not be sufficient. Firstly, the address indicated in the CRP(s) which mentioned “3” should have been corrected and a new notice should have been issued to the correct address.”

The controversy in the present case concerned the meaning of the notices in the CRPs. Senior advocate K. Chidambaram, appearing for the revision petitioners, said that though their correct address was ‘Gate No. 39-9-104/1-3, Sector 9, Muralinagar, Visakhapatnam’, the CRP notices have were sent to “Gate No. 39-9-104/1-3, Sector 9, Muralinagar, Visakhapatnam”. 39-3-104/1-3.”

The counsel representing the respondents, Advocate Sanjay Suraneni, with regard to the service of notice, produced postal tracking reports indicating “Returned Item Refused”.

The court, however, declared that at the address mentioned in the registered letter sent to respondent no. 2, the number “3” had been replaced by “9”, but the time and author of this correction remained unknown. . Similarly, overwriting was noted in the notice addressed to respondent No. 3, whereas the notice of respondent No. 1 still indicated the number “3” mentioned in the address.

After hearing both parties, the court found that the addresses of the defendants in the civil review petitions differed from those mentioned in the original 2007 petition.

“The address given is incorrect“, the court said. It said that the address given in the CRP(s) which mentioned ‘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 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.

He then said: “This Court is convinced that the review petitioners were not given the opportunity to be heard before the CRP due to lack of service. Unless the letter or notices were sent to the correct address, it cannot be said that there was refusal by the correct person or party to the CRP. There was no reason to proceed with deemed service by refusal. The review petitioners were not heard in the CRPs. The order dated 18.06.2024 was therefore issued in violation of the principles of natural justice, without the possibility of hearing the review petitioners (respondents 1 to 3 in the CRP(s)“.

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

Case Title: The Ancient Pattern Pentecostal Church (TAPPC SOCIETY) v. Kilari Anand Paul

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

Adviser to the review petitioners: Senior Advocate Sri K.Chidambaram and Advocates G.Yaswanth and Turaga Sai Surya.

Advocate for the respondents: Advocate Sai Sanjay Suraneni

Click here to read/download the order