# Filing of addresses

- **Citation:** C.L No. 75/VIII-a-58
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1929-05-06
- **Case number:** C.L No. 75/VIII-a-58
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/filing-of-addresses-162827
- **Pages:** 1

## Text

44
(v)
Filing of addresses
G.L. No. 22/45-18 dated 6th May, 1929

In order to avoid the delay and inconvenience arising out of the non-delivery of
communications sent by registered post containing incorrect name of postal town, the
post office has issued a rule providing for the non-acceptance of any article for
registration unless the postal town is clearly mentioned on the cover.

The Court also desires that no address for service or notice of change of address
furnished by parties for purposes of Orders VII, VIII, XLI, XLVI And LII (see Book of
Rules framed by the Court), shall be accepted for registration, or any letter of any
description issued for registration, or any letter of any description issued by registered
post to an address which does not clearly mention the name of the postal town. In Form
no. 17, Appendix H, of the Civil Procedure Code, column 4 is provided for name of post
office and all the clerks of civil courts shall be instructed to make certain that this column
is properly and legibly filled up by every person who furnishes an address in this form.
(vi)
Use of polite language
C.L No. 75/VIII-a-58 dated 19th July, 1951.
District Judges should issue instructions to all offices subordinate to them to use
polite language in all correspondence, and where the English form hitherto in vogue is
translated into Hindi, to use the correct Hindi form and correct Hindi equivalents of
English words.
C.L. No. 10/VIII-a-58 dated 24th February, 1965
In all vernacular forms of notices and summonses etc., the words ―TUM‖ and
―TUMHARE‖ should be changed by the words ―AAP‖ and ―AAPKE‖ and necessary
corrections should invariably be made before issuing it.
5.
GENERAL
(i)
Private Communication
G.L. No. 38/46-30-42 dated 19th November, 1929 and
G.O. No. 243/XVIII-590 dated 25th January, 1926
A telegram from an officer, applying for casual leave is of a private or personal
character and should not be sent as a ―State‖ message at government expense. In the
event of a reply to a private telegram being required by telegram, a reply paid message at
the officers' own expense should be sent.

Such telegram sent at state expense render the sender liable not only to refund of
actual cost but also to such disciplinary action as may be considered necessary.
G.L. No. 44-46/23-98 dated 1st December, 1931

Communications by a government servant regarding his leave, pay, transfer,
leave, allowances, fund subscriptions and analogous matters are private and not official,
and should not, therefore, be sent at public expense.