TRIPURA MODERN BANK LTD Vs. BANSEN AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an undefended suit. At the moment it is failing for want of proper service of the writ of summons. That, of course, does not mean that I am dismissing it, but I am granting further opportunity to the plaintiff to effect a proper service. Unfortunately, this kind of service has become so frequent of late that in a future case the Court may not deal with the matter so kindly. It is for that purpose that I propose in this case to discuss the law relating to the service of writs and to point out the defects which are being so constantly met with.

(2.) This suit is for a decree for Bs. 3,563-13-1, upon an overdraft loan account which defendant l had with the plaintiff Bank. Defendant l is a partnership firm and defendants 2 and 3 are the partners thereof. Defendant 4 has been sued as a guarantor. So far as defendant 4 is concerned, he was served personally and acknowledged service of the writ of summons, and no question arises about the service upon him. The service upon the other three defendants is utterly inadequate. I shall now proceed to describe the service effected upon them.

(3.) The writ of summons in respect of all these three defendants were transmitted to the Sealdah Court, and it appears from the return of that Court that they were served by a process-server of the name of Jadunath Dey. It has already been pointed out that defendant 1 is a partnership firm and defendants 2 and 3 have been, impleaded as parties in their capacity as partners of defendant 1. It will further be observed that the address of defendant 1 is given as 12, Cornwallis Street and it is stated that defendants 2 and 3 carry on business under the firm name and style of Bansen and Co. at the same address. Their residential addresses have not been given in the cause title. Service of the writ was effected on defendants l and 2 in the following manner.