KUTTIAPPA GOUNDER Vs. P M RANGASAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE procedure adopted by the court below is not satisfactory. Notice on interim attachment was ordered on 10. 7. 1991 returnable on 5. 8. 1991. On 5. 8. 1991, the court below has made the endorsement as follows: 'respondent absent affixed. Properties attached on 12. 7. 1991. Item I valued at Rs. 75 ,000. Item II valued at Rs. 1 ,25,000. Service sufficient. Respondent called absent set ex parte . . Petition is allowed with costs. Attachment is made absolute.';

(2.) THE suit is only for Rs. 54 ,360. Learned judge has not even applied his mind as to whether it is necessary at all to attach two items worth about Rs. 2 ,00,000 in all. When the first item is worth, according to the order of the learned Judge rs. 75 ,000 , he need not have directed attachment of item 2. At any rate, learned Judge has not considered the provisions of O. 5, rule 15 and Rule 17, C. P. C. Under O. 5, Rule 15, C. P. C. , if the defendant is absent from his residence at the time when the service of summons is sought to be effected on him, the process server must be satisfied, ( i )that there is likelihood of the defendant being found at the residence within a reasonable time, and (ii) he has no agent empowered to accept the service of summons on his behalf and in that event, service may be made on any adult member of the family, whether male or female, who is residing with him.