Sarjoo Prosad, J.

1. This application is against an order dismissing for default a suit instituted by the plaintiff-petitioner. The suit was for setting aside an ex parte decree passed against the petitioner. The suit in question was instituted in March, 1947, and the petitioner took steps for service of notices upon the defendants. It appears from the order of the Court, dated the 15th of May, 1947, that summonses and notices were served on all the defendants except defendant No. 9. Apparently the Court was not satisfied with this service, and therefore the Court directed that the plaintiff should file registered cards for defendants 1 to 8 and 10 to 12 and fake steps for service on defendant No. 9.

Eventually notices appear to have been served on defendant No. 9 also, on the 16th of July 1947, but there was some delay in the service of the registered cards on some of the defendants with the result that on the 10th of September 1947, the Court directed that the postmaster should be written to about the service of registered cards on defendants 3, 5, 9, 10 and 12 by the date fixed, From time to time the order sheets disclose that issues were settled and parties appear to ha