WhatsApp Transmission Of Summons Not Conclusive Proof Of Actual Notice: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that WhatsApp transmission of summons is not by itself conclusive proof that the defendant actually received or had notice of the summons.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri observed that merely sending summons to a mobile number associated with the defendant cannot establish due service, particularly when the process server's report records that the call was answered by a third person.
“The existence of the mobile number and the factum of transmission are distinct from proof that the summons were actually received by the appellant. The intervening circumstance of the call being answered by a third person, coupled with the appellant's consistent denial of having received the summons, required a more cautious examination,” the bench observed.
The Court made the observation while allowing an appeal filed against dismissal of Appellant's application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, by which he had sought setting aside of an ex-parte judgment and decree passed against him.
The underlying civil suit concerned alleged unauthorised construction, seepage-related damage and alleged obstruction of access.
Appellant had been proceeded ex-parte along with the other defendants in June 2022. The suit was subsequently decreed in November 2023, with the trial court awarding ₹10 lakh in damages besides granting injunctive reliefs.
Appellant later approached the trial court under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, claiming that he had never been served with summons and had no knowledge of the proceedings. He said he came to know about the ex-parte decree only in July 2025 through documents sent to him on WhatsApp in connection with proceedings before the High Court.
The trial court rejected his application, holding that he had knowledge of the decree by July 19/22, 2025 and that his application was beyond the prescribed 30-day limitation period. It also relied on the process server's report concerning WhatsApp service.
Before the High Court, Appellant argued that the electronic communication could not be treated as conclusive proof of service and the process server's report itself recorded that the relevant mobile number had been answered by one Amarjeet Singh, who identified himself as Singh's relative and said he would inform him about the summons.
In this backdrop the High Court observed,
“The material placed before this Court does not justify treating the receipt of the WhatsApp communication as equivalent to conclusive knowledge of the summons so as to non-suit the appellant without examining the surrounding circumstances. The appellant's case regarding the manner in which the communication came to his notice cannot be rejected merely on the basis of an inference drawn from the electronic record. “
As such, the Court set aside the trial court's order qua Appellant subject to payment of ₹20,000 costs and allowed his Order IX Rule 13 application.
Appearance: Mr. Varun Gaba, Advocate for Appellant; Mr. Kunal Madan, Advocate for Respondents
Case title: Nirmaljeet Singh v. Guljeet Singh & Ors.
Case no.: FAO 268/2026