# to Court's in Tamil Nadu for service and Return-Regarding

- **Citation:** C.L. No. 53/VIII-b-16/Admn
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1994-01-04
- **Case number:** C.L. No. 53/VIII-b-16/Admn
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/to-court-s-in-tamil-nadu-for-service-and-return-regarding-163115
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

139
(viii) Language used to endorse the manner of service in notices summons etc. sent
to Court's in Tamil Nadu for service and Return-Regarding.
C.L. No. 53/VIII-b-16/Admn. (F) dated 25 May, 1994
I am directed to send herewith a copy of the Circular Letter No. 2636/93/F1, dated
4-1-1994 of the Registrar, High Court, Madras and to request you to kindly strictly
comply the instructions given in the aforesaid circular letter forthwith.
Thiru A. Ramamurthy, Registrar, High Court, Madras
Language used to endorse the manner of service in notices summons etc.
Sent to courts in Tamil Nadu for service and Return- Regarding.
R.O.C. No. 2636/93/F1 dated January 4, 1994
I am to state that Rule 55 of Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders
applicable to the Civil Courts in the State of Tamil Nadu says that when a process is
written in a language different from that of the area in which it is to be served, the court
transmitting it for service shall also send a translation thereof in English and in cases in
which process has to be returned to any court outside the State of Tamil Nadu and the
return is not in English or in the language of that court, the proceedings Form 10,
Appendix B, Schedule I of the Code with which it is sent back to that Court shall be
accompanied by a translation of the return in English.
It has now been brought to the notice of this Registry, by the Subordinate Judicial
Officers that summons and notices received from other States for service and return by the
courts in Tamil Nadu are in the vernacular language of that State. English translation of
the same are not accompanied as per the rule mentioned above and that none furnishing of
English translation causes much inconvenience to the subordinate Courts in this State.
Similarly, the process sent by the Civil Courts in Tamil Nadu to outside the State
for service and return are received back after service with the endorsement of the Nazirs
of that court only in the vernacular language of that courts which could not be
deciphered.
In this connection, I am also to add that as per Rule 55 of the Civil Rules of
Practice and circular orders applicable to the Subordinate civil courts in this State, the
summons and notices for service in this State should be accompanied by English
translation if they are in any other language. Likewise, the endorsement with regard to the
manner of service or non-service of the summons or notices received from the civil courts
in Tamil Nadu should be accompanied by a true translation in English.
I am, therefore, directed to request you to look into the matter and issue suitable
instructions to the Subordinate Civil Courts under your control to give a true translation
of the (1) summons/notices intended to be served in the courts in Tamil Nadu in English
and (2) endorsement regarding the manner of service, in English, as regards processes
issued from the courts in this State, so that the endorsements may be correctly
understood.
140
I am also to state that this Registry has also issued necessary circular instructions
to the Subordinate Civil Courts in this State to adhere strictly Rule 55 of the Civil Rules
of practice and circular orders mentioned above.
(ix)
 Service of notices
(a)
Registered addresses for service
G.L. No. 421 dated 11th February, 1924

The rules made by this court under orders VII and VIII of the Code of Civil
Procedure require every party in the trial court to file an address for service. Order VII,
rule 22 provides that affixation to the outer door at such address may be sufficient and
that if the party be not present on the date fixed, service by registered post shall suffice.
By rule 12, Order VIII, this rule applies to appeals as well. Yet the courts below continue
to report from time to time that service by affixation is insufficient, which often results in
a waste of time and labour in the High Court.

The attention of all subordinate courts is drawn to the provisions of Order VII
rules 19-25 and Order VIII, rules 11 and 12.

District Judges should make it a point to see, when inspecting their own and the
subordinate courts that these rules are being complied with.
G.L. No. 35/VIII-18 dated 13th May, 1964
Notices for service on parties residing within the municipal limits of the city of
Ahmedabad should be address to the Principal Judge, City Civil Court- Ahmedabad.
G.L. No. 2590/6713 dated 5th July, 1924
Subordinate courts appear to experience some difficulty in deciding whether
service is sufficient, because there is nothing to show whether the addresses of parties to
which notices from this Court have been issued are or are not the addresses furnished by
them for service under Order VII, rule 19, or Order VIII, rule 11.

To obviate this difficulty it is directed:
(1)
that whenever an address has been filed for service under either of the

above rules, such address shall be entered in the final decree or formal

order instead of the address given in the plaint;
(2)
that the decree or formal order shall indicate that the address is that filed

for service under the above rules, either by the insertion in brackets

immediately after such address of the number of the rule under which

it was filed or in some other way. Whenever no such indication appears it

will be understood that no address for service was filed by the party in

question.
Notices then issuing from the High Court will contain an endorsement to the
effect that the address given is the address furnished by the party for service, by the
insertion in red ink in brackets immediately after the address of the letter ―F.S.‖ (i.e. filed
for service under one of the above rules).