9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (8) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. This appeal is directed against a judgment passed by a learned Judge of this Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 282 of 1956 on the 2nd January 1959 That appeal was brought to this Court against an order of the trial Judge refusing to set aside an ex parte decree passed against defendant no. 2 and his three sons, defendants 18 to 20. in a money suit, which the plaintiff had laid on the basis of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel appearing for defendant No 2 appellant is that the substituted service of summons, as ordered under Order 5. Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the trial court on the 17th July. 1953 was not justified in law inasmuch as the pre-requisite condition laid down in that rule was not satisfied. He continued that Rule 12 of Order 5 enjoins upon a personal service of summons where-ever it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and circumstances of the case. But learned Counsel contended that it was not the satisfaction of the appellate court but the satisfaction of the trial court which was a pre-requisite condition before any substituted service could be legally ordered for under Rule 20. This contention is right but all the same it does not appear from the order sheet nor from any other material that the trial court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation of the plaintiff was passed by the trial court There is. therefore, sufficient material to presume that High Court was satisfied as a matter of fact as contemplated under Rule 20 before it directed a substituted service effected by publication of the summons in the Bengal Gazette. Mere absence in the order sheet to the effect that the Court was satisfied or mere absence of any reference to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
