Service of summons at a company's registered office is valid, even if the process server does not examine the authority of the person who refuses to accept service, unless the company can prove that the service was not duly effected.

( 1 ) ON 30th March, 1999 a decree was passed by this Court in the undefended suit. For the purpose of placement of suits under the heading 'undefended suit' in the Court of Law one has to cross various procedural avenues laid down under Original Side Rules of this Court. Such Rules are pari materia with the Code of Civil Procedure. Sometimes Court directs to place the matter under the heading 'undefended suit' under very special circumstances. Unlike the District Courts, regular cause lists are printed from which one can see that suits or proceedings are reflected in such lists. Under normal courses of proceeding, the suit has to be placed in the prospective list, thereafter in the warning list and lastly under peremptory list of the Judge. Even where, the Court directs to place the matter under 'undefended suit' Court has to be satisfied with the test of service on the basis of the certificates to be issued by the Registrar/deputy Registrar/deputy Sheriff etc. There is no need of disbelieving their certificates being the part and parcel of the judicial system. Therefore, Court proceeds on the basis of such certificate or certificates.

( 2 ) IN the instant case, I find two applications were made. One application is under section 5 of the Limitation Act and another is under Order 9 Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure read with section 151 of the same. Both were made sometimes in August, 1999. Admittedly, there is a delay of 105 days in making such application. In Original Side, a conjoint application is needed to be moved. However, to avoid the technicalities Court received both the applications even after making separately.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to me, there is a gulf difference in between hearing the suit ex parte and hearing the suit under category of 'undefended suit'. In hearing the application for setting aside the decree passed ex parte, Court has to proceed with two conditions as under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure; (a) if one satisfies the Court that the summons were not duly served; (b) if one is prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing.

( 4 ) HERE there is no question of prevention by sufficient cause when one chooses not to appear and the suit is placed under the heading 'undefended suit' on the basis of the appropriate certificate issued by the officer of the Court. Hence, the next test would be whether the summons were duly served upon the defendant or not. Mr. Hirak Kumar Mitter, learned senior counsel, appearing in support of the petitioner harped on such point repeatedly to get into the provision of Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Firstly, according to him, there was no office of the defendant company at 10a, Rabindra Sarani, Calcutta-700 014. But when the plaintiff served a sub-peon upon the Registrar of Companies to produce the record and the same was produced before the Court it appeared that the same was the correct address of the company's registered office. Mr. Mitter in presence of the Court, perused the record and voluntarily withdrawn himself from making any submission in connection thereto. Court examined the representative of the Registrar of Companies as witness. I have taken note of the documents produced from the record in respect of the service of the writ of summons upon the company and it appears to this Court that the registered envelope returned un-served. I have also gone through the office note of the process server. It appears from there that one authorised representative Sekh Sabir Ali refused to take service of the writ of summons. According to Mr. Mitter the process server should be examined by the Court. It is true but the question is at whose instance such process server will be examined? Definitely he should be examined at the instance of the defendant who is questioning the service. Onus is upon him to examine by issuance of sub poena. Court has no material to disbelieve his own administrative