ORDER : 1. Notice issued to the 2nd respondent returned with an endorsement unclaimed. 2. The appellant has filed this interlocutory application invoking sub-rule (2) of Rule 51 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 seeking a declaration that notice is duly served on the 2nd respondent. In the interlocutory application, the provision is wrongly quoted as sub-section (2) of Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 3. Rule 51 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala deals with manner of issues of notice. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 51, unless otherwise ordered, every notice shall be sent, in the instance, to the address of the respondent given in the memorandum of appeal or petition, as the case may be, by means of registered post, acknowledgment prepaid. An acknowledgment purporting to be signed by the respondent shall be deemed to be sufficient proof of service of such notice. As per the firs proviso to sub-rule (1), the following process shall be served by an officer of the Court or of a subordinate - (a) Notice to a proposed guardian ad-litem and (b) Writs and injunctions. 4. As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 51, where the postal article containing the notice is received back by the court with an endorsement purporting to have been made by a postal employee to the effect that the respondent or his agent had refused to take the delivery of postal article containing the notice when tendered to him, the court shall declare that the notice had been duly served on the respondent. As per the first proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 51, where the notice was properly addressed, prepaid and duly sent by registered post, acknowledgment due, the declaration referred to in this sub-rule shall be made notwithstanding the fact that the acknowledgment having been lost or mislaid, or for any other reason, has not been received by the court within thirty days form the date of issue of the notice. 5. 5. As per the second proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 51, inserted by the Rules of the High Court of Kerala (2nd Amendment), 2018, noticed vide Notification No. D1-65782/2014 dated 04.02.2009, no such declaration shall be made where the postal article containing the notice is received back by the court with an endorsement purporting to have been made by a postal employee to the effect that the addressee has not claimed it. 6. In view of the amendment made to sub-rule (2) of Rule 51, by inserting the second proviso, no declaration that notice had been duly served on the respondent shall be made when the postal articles containing the notice is received back by the court with an endorsement purporting to have been made by a postal employee to the effect the respondent or his agent has not claimed it. 7. In the result, I.A. No. 1 of 2019 fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. M.A.C.A. No. 841 of 2007 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent insurer that the insurance coverage of the offending vehicle is not in dispute. In such circumstance, services of notice on the 2nd respondent dispensed with. List for hearing on 15.10.2019.