The judgment emphasized the importance of following proper procedures in legal proceedings, including service of summons and distribution of judicial work, and highlighted the statutory provisions and rules related to these procedures.

( 1 ) THE Government of Karnataka and its servants being faced with an ex-parte money decree for Rs. 56,68,734/- have preferred this regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The impugned judgment and decree dated 27. 5. 2000 has been passed in O. S. No. 16255/1999 by Sri D. V. Shet, XXVth Additional city Civil Judge at Mayohall, Bangalore (CCH-20 ).

( 2 ) THE facts which have transpired during the hearing of the present appeal eloquently speaks as to how the manipulations, manoeuvering, latches and carelessness at various levels of State organs can result in grave abuse of process of the Court and imperil the public revenue.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1, which is a private limited Company, had filed a suit in question seeking a decree in a sum of Rs. 56,91,734 with interest at 21% per annum against the appellants-State of karnataka through its Chief Secretary and others, who are defendants 1 to 4 in the Court below. Since according to the Court below, despite service of notices, defendants neither filed their written statements nor appeared on the dates fixed for hearing of the suit, therefore they were placed ex-parte and ultimately the suit was decreed in terms of the relief claimed by the plaintiff.

( 4 ) SINCE, in our opinion, for the reasons set out hereinafter, the impugned judgment and decree are not sustainable on the ground of serious procedural latches, we do not propose to express any opinion on the merits of the case, though the learned Advocate general appearing for the State, desired to impress upon us that the claims as made out by the plaintiff, are totally untenable both on facts and in law.

( 5 ) ONE of the grounds taken in the present appeal is that the trial Judge had not given proper opportunity to the appellants to putforth their case in the manner required by law. Since we were at a loss as to how despite service of notices on the appellants, the suit could have gone ex-parte against the Government, we called for lower Court records and also permitted each of the appellants to state on affidavit as to whether they had been duly served and had taken appropriate steps for appearance before the trial Court. Accordingly, personal affidavits have been filed by the Chief Secretary to the Government, Secretary to the Department of Women and Child development, the Director of Department of Women and Child development as also the Law Secretary to the Government. These affidavited statements have brought to light as to how the public interest can conveniently be defeated because of either deliberate inaction or apathetic negligence on the part of the Government functionaries and the Government Pleaders.

( 6 ) IN the present case, the plaint was presented on 14. 10. 1999 in the Mayo Hall unit of the City Civil Court, Bangalore. On 15. 10. 1999, the suit was registered as O. S. No. 16255/99. According to the administrative arrangements, it was assigned to Court Hall no. CCH-20, about the legality whereof, we have serious doubt. On 15. 10. 1999, the assignee Court directed for issuance of emergent notice to the defendants returnable on 27. 10. 1999. On the latter date, the case was adjourned to 22. 11. 1999 awaiting service report. But, on 29. 10. 1999, application was filed by the plaintiff for advancement for passing orders on the application for re-issue of emergent notice to defendants on LA. returnable by 22. 11. 1999. The trial Court considered the request and passed order accordingly. On 22. 11. 1999, defendants 3 to 5 were shown as present, defendant 2 was placed ex-parte and time was granted till 16. 12. 1999 for return of the process on defendants 1 and 6. On 16. 12. 1999, since nobody appeared for defendants 3 to 6, they were placed ex-parte. But the case was adjourned to 13. 1. 2000 for awaiting service of summons on defendant No. 1 i. e. State Government impleaded through its Chief secretary. The Order sheet of the trial Court surprisingly shows that after having