JUDGMENT

1. These are two appeals Nos. 229 and 235 of 1907 on behalf of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and Nos. 3 and 4 respectively.

2. It appears that two applications were made u/s 108, Civil Procedure Code, to set aside an ex parte decree passed against all the defendants. These applications were rejected by the second Subordinate Judge of Chittagong on the 27th May 1907, and the present appeals are against this order.

3. The suit by the plaintiff was for recovery of Rs. 5,496-1-3 from the defendants on account of articles supplied to them by the plaintiff's firm. The defendant No. 4 is admittedly a Gudian Gomashta of the firm belonging to the other defendants.

4. It appears from the report made by the serving peon that he found defendant No. 4 on the premises where the firm belonging to the other defendants is located and that he tendered the summons and copies of the plaint, but on the 4th defendant's refusal to take them he affixed the summonses and copies of the plaint on the outer door of the defendants' business house. Defendant No. 4 appears to be Am Mukhtear of Pitambar, defendant No. 3, and evidently is the man of business of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, whether, he holds any formal