Section 78: Refusal to accept service

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 345/2520 (1977)

   Where a defendant refuses the summons and copy of the plaint and the officer leaves them in front of the defendant without an administrative official or police officer present as a witness, the service is unlawful under Section 78, so the proceedings from that point are invalid.

   The officer served the summons and copy of the plaint, the defendant refused, and the officer left them in front of the defendant without an administrative official or police witness. The court held this violated Section 78, and later posting of the hearing notice without a court order breached Section 79, so service had never been effected and the proceedings from then on were invalid.

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 1816/2527 (1984)

   Section 78 does not require a local police officer as a witness in every case; posting the notice at the guarantor's stated domicile in the bail contract was valid, and the witness requirement does not apply to that posting where there was no refusal.

   A bail guarantor argued the posting of the notice at his contract address was invalid for lack of a police witness. The court held that since the guarantor had not notified the court of any change of address, posting at the address in the bail contract was valid, and Section 78 did not require a local police witness for that posting.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.