JUDGMENT

Ewart Greaves, J. - These two appeals are by-defendants Nos. 3 and 1 respectively in a partition suit for setting aside an ex parte decree that had been passed for partition of certain properties. Defendant No. 3 is a pardanashin lady and her case is that she was never served. Defendant 'No. 1 who is appellant in Appeal No. 64 of 1924 says that he was unable to present his case to the Court owing to the negligence or collusion of one Bhola Nath an employer of his who had been entrusted by him with the conduct of the case. So far as the lady is concerned, defendant No. 1, the appellant in Appeal No. 63, it appears that the service was effected by serving summons on her third son who lives in the same house as the lady. Under the circumstances it seems to me that it must be taken to be a proper service on this lady and we have not the slightest doubt that she knew all about the suit and that she had ample opportunity of giving due and proper instructions with regard to the conduct of the case.

2. The result is that Appeal No. 63 of 1924 is dismissed with costs--hearing-fee, one gold mohur.

3. Defendant No. 1 filed a written statement in the suit but he was not present when the