Service upon an employee at the partnership's principal place of business, who has the authority to receive paper communications, is considered valid service upon the partner, in accordance with Order 30 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 1 ) 37 of 37 of These are two applications in two suits made by Banwari Lall Pasari who is the second defendant in one suit and the third defendant in another, for setting aside two ex parte decrees passed in the two suits on the 10/02/1992.

( 2 ) THE other defendants against whom the decrees are also binding have not made applications for setting aside of the decrees.

( 3 ) IT can hardly be disputed that for the past six years the plaintiffs have been in possession of the two flats in respect of which the decrees were passed pursuant to which the learned Registrar, O. 5, has already executed appropriate conveyance in favour of the plaintiff.

( 4 ) THE ground why the second defendant wishes to have the ex parte decrees set aside is the ground of non-service of the writ of summons.

( 5 ) IN both these cases a single note, one in each suit, issuing from the Sheriff's office had been relied upon by the plaintiff for the purpose of proving service. Along with the two notes in the two cases, there were two affidavits of service of an attorney's employees, one Sukdeb Das. In one of the affidavits Sukdeb Das wrongly states that the writ of summons was served upon the partner Banwari Lall Pasari himself. However, in the other affidavit of service and in the two notes issuing from the Sheriff's office it is clear that the defendant Banawari Lal Pasari was not personally served, but that, the service was through one O. P. Singh, at 16, India Exchange Place, the address given in the plaint.

( 6 ) THE name of O. P. Singh is mentioned in one note from the Sheriff's office but not in the other. The signatures on the reverse of thetwo writs of summons are similarly made, apparently by O. P. Singh.

( 7 ) THE first point raised was a point of fact. Mr. Chatterji said that O. P. Singh is not in the employment of the concerned defendant Banwari Lall Pasari at all. I am unable to accept that contention on facts for the reasons as follows.

( 8 ) THE same note issuing from the Sheriff's office contains service regarding all the defendants. If Mr. Chatterji's contention is to be accepted then I would have come to the conclusion that the two notes from the Sheriff's office are partly false. There is no reason to come to such conclusion. There is no reason to come to the conclusion that 16, India Exchange Place had not actually been visited.

( 9 ) IT is not un-understandable if Banwari Lall Pasari did not resist the suit in spite of getting notice through O. P. Singh. The said defendant has shown no apparent interest in the two flats for the past six years which were continued to be possessed by the plaintiff, and the suit merely perfected their legal title thereto. No decree for possession had thus been claimed at all. It is conceivable that the defendant Pasari had lost interest in the two flats and thus in the two suits.

( 10 ) IF Pasari was unaware of the suit then some explanation should be given why and they became aware of the suit after the passing of the ex parte decree so as to be able to initiate these applications. The explanation in paragraph-2 in the petition in Suit No. 470 relied upon by Pasari is, to say the least, extremely vague.

( 11 ) PASARI is said to have received enquiries from a property dealer as to how Pasari acquired interest therein. Upon such inquiries Pasari is said to have become suspicious and made enquiries and it was revealed to Pasari that two High Court suits have been pending. The process of such revelation is not to be understood from the reading of paragraph 2.

( 12 ) IN the Affidavit-in-Reply the said property dealer has been mentioned as Jawaharlal Agarwal and the affidavit of the said Agarwal is also annexed. In that affidavit it is stated that Agarwal came to know that the first floor of the premises 113, Park Street was for sale. Upon such knowledge, he contacted Banwari Lall Pasari. Banwari Lall Pasari, apparently, intimated that they were the owners. Thereafter, Jawaharlal Agarwal