BABOO ALI Vs. MUSHTAK AHMAD AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') the defendants/petitioners have called in question the legal validity of the order dated 10-5-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-II, Kotma in Civil Suit No. 98-A/98.

(2.) THE facts as have been unfurled are that the non-applicants as plaintiffs initiated civil action against Baboo All, the father of the present petitioners, for eviction and arrears of rent. Baboo Ali entered contest and disputed the claim of the non-applicant by denying the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant and also questioning the title of the non-applicants. Baboo Ali also claimed title in respect of the suit property. During the pendency of the suit Baboo Ali expired, and thereafter, the petitioners were brought on record as legal representatives. After the present petitioners were substituted an objection was raised by them that other legal heirs had been left out. They supplied the names of two daughters of Baboo Ali, namely, Momena Khatoon and Noor Jahan Ahmad. After such an objection was raised and addresses were given, the non-applicants filed an application under Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code to join the two sisters as defendants in the suit. The address of Noor Jahan was given in some place at Calcutta. As far as the notice to Momena Khatoon is concerned, address was given of village Chatgaon in Bangladesh. The learned Trial Judge issued summons by registered post with acknowledgment due. As the acknowledgment due did not come back within thirty days he treated the service to be sufficient by the impugned order. The said order is the cause of grievance of the present petitioners.

(3.) ASSAILING the aforesaid order it is submitted by Mr. Usmani, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the learned Trial Court Judge would have done well to send the summons to a Competent Court in Bangladesh to be served on Momena Khatoon but as the same has not been done the order treating the service to be sufficient is bad in law. Resisting the aforesaid submission it is submitted by Mr. Fakhruddin, learned counsel for the non-applicants, that the learned Trial Judge has rightly held the service to be sufficient as per the language envisaged under Order V Rule 25 of the Code.