AF COLENCO LTD Vs. TUFF ENERGY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has instituted the suit for recovery of Rs.46,11,772/- from the defendant. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendant. The defendant inspite of service failed to file written statement or appear and was vide order dated 04.11.2011 proceeded against ex parte and the plaintiff permitted to file ex parte evidence.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the affidavit by way of examination-in-chief of its Managing Director Sh. Jothi Ekanthappa and which was tendered in evidence before the Joint Registrar and the documents referred to therein given the exhibit marks, and the plaintiff closed its ex parte evidence.

(3.) However when thereafter the matter came up before this Court, it was discovered that the summons on the basis of service whereof the defendant had been proceeded against ex parte, had been served on the representative of M/s Tuff Drilling Pvt. Ltd. instead of the defendant and thus the plaintiff was vide order dated 24.02.2012 directed to serve the defendant afresh. The summons then sent to the defendant were returned unserved with the report of the premises, address whereof was given by the plaintiff, having been found locked. The plaintiff then applied for substituted service stating that it had no other address of the defendant available with it and which was allowed vide order dated 04.12.2012. The defendant was accordingly served by publication in the newspaper