SARBESWAR GHOSH Vs. MANAB KUMAR SAJJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant filed an application under the provisions of O. 9, R. 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to assail an ex parte decree passed against him on the ground that no summons were served on him or, at any rate, were not duly served.

(2.) It is obvious from the records of the suit that the summonses were served on and received by the appellant's adult brother at the residence and under the provisions of Rule 15 of Order 5 as substituted by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act of 1976, that was apparently good service. Neither the applicant, nor the brother came to dock to state that he was not a brother or an adult member of the family or that summonses were not received by him, or that the applicant was not absent at the time when service of summons was sought to be effected.

(3.) The burnt of the argument on behalf of the appellant/applicant is that under the provisions of Rule 19A of Order 5, as inserted by the aforesaid Amendment Act of 1976, a simultaneous issuance of summons to be served by registered post is mandatory and the personal service in this case under Rule 15 was invalid and ineffective as there was no issuance of summons by registered post as well.