HARJIBANDAS GORDHANDAS Vs. BHAGWANDAS PURSRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case an application is made to set aside the ex parte decree and the ground of the application is that the writ of summons was not duly served, it being farther alleged on the part of the applicant that the institution of the suit did not come to her notice or to the notice of the persons acting for her until the decree had been passed.

(2.) The suit is against a firm in its firm name. The allegation of the applicant is, first of all, that the business carried on under the name or style of Bhugwandas Pursram was a business of which her husband during his life-time was the sole possessor. She says that before this action was brought she herself merely carried on that business for the purpose of collecting outstandings and that in point of fact the firm, if it can be correctly called a firm, had ceased to carry on business as such some considerable time ago. What the facts are as to that in this case it is quite impossible for one to determine upon the cross-contradictions in the affidavits. According to the plaintiffs, the firm is a firm of which a good many people still living are partners.

(3.) The summons was sent by registered post. So far as that service goes, there is a further important point, that the applicant adduces evidence to show that it is not true that the summons was in fact delivered by the postal peon to the only address that the firm had bad.