KLG SYSTEL LIMITED Vs. FUJITSU ICIM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by the defendant for condo- nation of delay in filing its 'Leave to Defend'. The relevant facts are that summons for Judgment were attempted to be served on the defendants on 5.3.1999 at its Delhi office; the service report records a refusal. The defendant in its 'Memorandum of Appearance' for service had given three addresses viz. (i) the Delhi office, (ii) Registered Office at Pune, and (iii) address of the Counsel for the defendant- company. It appears that the Process Server went to the Delhi office and tried to serve the summons for judgment on Ms. Shakila who informed him that she only dealt with -maintenance of record in the Personnel Department and was not authorised to accept summons. It is the defendant/applicant's contention as contained in para 7 of the application that the Process Server did not leave any copy of the summons for judgment with Ms. Shakila and also did not affix these documents at the said address. It is further alleged that the Process Server did not make any attempt to serve the process again even though he was specifically told that the authorise person, Mr. S.M. Khanna, would return to Delhi on 20.3.1999. Counsel for the defendant accepted the summons for judgment in Court on the next date of hearing and thereafter filed the present application. The plaintiff has not denied the averments contained in para 7 to the effect that the summons were not left with Ms. Shakila and were not affixed at the said address. The averments in this application are not admitted. But the plaintiff has merely mentioned that they are part of the records of this Court. On this material issue, therefore, in my opinion, there is non-traverse, with the consequence that the version put forward by the defendant would have to be accepted as correct.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the plaintiff argued that .Order XXXVII contemplates the furnishing of a Single address for subsequent service of the summons for judgment, and that inasmuch as three addresses were given in this case, the plaintiff was not obligated to serve the defendant at the three addresses. A perusal of the language of the order makes it amply clear, by the use of the singular in the noun, "that it is not open to the defendant to give more than one such address". This argument on behalf of the plaintiff is accepted. Only one address on the Memoran- dum of Appearance is proper. In the present case, no attempt was made to serve the defendants at the address of then Advocates; and hence this objection loses significance for this reason.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the defendant, however, submits that even if this be the legal position, and only the Delhi office is taken into contemplation the service of the summons for judgment at that address is not proper and therefore not binding on the defendant. In support of the contention he relies on the judgment in Shalimar Rope Works v. Mis. Abdul Hussain, AIR 19801163 SC. The following observation are as follows: