VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

( 1 ) PURSUANT to orders dated 22. 4. 1997 service on the Defendant was effected bythe clerk of the advocate for the plaintiff on 2. 5. 1996. The original summons were,however, misplaced. It is further siated that when the case came up for hearing on thenext date, i. e. 10. 9. 1997 fresh notice was ordered for 9. 12. 1997. The misplacedsummons were thereafter discovered. It is not in controversy that appearance onbehalf of the Defendants was entered on 5. 12. 1997 after they were served on27. 11. 1997.

( 2 ) IT was on 24. 4. 1997 that summons were first issued to the Defendants in theprescribed form for 10. 9. 1997. It is necessary to underscore that Dasti orders werenot passed in this context. Orders permitting service, Dasti, are normally grantedwhere urgency and expedition is necessary. It is only an adjunctory and ancillary fromof service. Even where Dasti service are ordered, there is no justification for notsimultaneously also following the ordinary procedure of service, i. e. either by personalservice through the Process Server, or. through Registered A. D. , or both. In thepresent case initials/signatures are available on the Dasti summons. It is to bepresumed and surmised by the Court that these belong to the Defendants. It hasfurther been left to speculation as to which of the Defendants these initials/signaturesbelong to. The Court is expected and invited to act upon affidavits of the court clerk ofthe advocate concerned. All this in a summary suit where appearance is time bound!and that too, where service on the Defendant is sought to be effected on the very firstoccasion. No doubt whatsoever should remain in the context of service of a party tothe proceedings. The need for the Court to be satisfied beyond doubt, on this score,cannot be over-emphasized. Afundamental miscarriage of justice, affecting the verysinews of the list, is always possible and lurking where a deviation from the recognisedprocedure is made. Furthermore, no reasons or explanations are forthcoming onaccount of which the Court should ignore its own Orders. As has been stated above,the first hearing was on 24. 4. 1997 and the case was adjourned to 10. 9. 1997. On thislatter date the following orders were passed:

( 3 ) THERE is no warrant whatsoever for overlooking these orders. The "appearance"itself records, and this is also borne out from the Court records, that the Defendantswere served on 27. 11. 1997. Withing the stipulated period counsel for the Defendantshave entered appearance. Pt would not besanguine to presume therefore, that had the Defendants been properly served on the prior and first occasion they would havealso entered appearance Within the requisite period.

( 4 ) SERVICE ought to have been effected, in the first instance, by ordinary process aswas ordered on the first date of hearing. Dasti service, with all its inherent weaknessesof possible manipulation cannot be accepted in derogation of the ordinary procedure. Even if Dasti service had been effected, in view of the orders for service on thedefendants on the next ensuing date, i. e. , 10. 9. 1997, the Defendants were requiredto enter appearance only pursuant to service in terms of these orders.

( 5 ) WHILE I was considering whether the suit deserves to be decreed I had perusedthe summons issued by this court to be fully satisfied about the facts pertaining to theservice of the Defendant. Appearance has been entered on behalf of the Defendantson 5. 12. 1997. The case shall proceed from that stage The Plaintiff will file theapplication for issuance of summons for judgment under Order XXXVII Rule 3 (4) ofthe Code of Civil Procedure. Renotify the matter on 1/05/2000.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document