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 bepre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document