( 1 ) THIS Court had ordered service of respondent by affixation. The affixation was done at the last known address of the respondent. The Process Server has deposed on the summons that there was no witness available hence affixation could not be evidenced by any witness. This Court, accordingly, did not treat it to be a proper service on the respondent as it was not evidenced by any witness as required under the Rules.

( 2 ) COUNSEL for the O. L. Mr. B. N. Nayyar contended that it was aproper service and the objection raised by this Court is not sustainable. according to him the Original Side rules of this High Court are not applicable to the proceedings pending before the Company Court.

( 3 ) THE Company Court has to follow the Companies (Court) Rules 1959, (hereinafter called the Company Rules) or at best the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, but by no 399 strech Of imagination the provisions of Original Side Rules of the High Court can be atttacted to the proceedings before the Company Court.

( 4 ) IN order to strengthen his arguments, Mr. B. N. Nayyar, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Official Liquidator, contended that under the Sub-rule 2 (5) of the Companies Rules the word court means the Court having jursidiction under the Act. According to him, the Act means the Companies Act 1956. Under Rule 6 of the said Rules, the practice and procedure of the Court and the provisions of the Code so far as applicable shall apply to all proceedings under the Act and these Rules. The Registrar may decline to accept any document which is presented otherwise than in accordahce with these rules and procedure of the Court. Laying emphasis on the words practice and Procedure of the Court Mr. Nayyar contended that practice and procedure which is mentioned under Rule 6 does not mean that the practice and procedure followed on the Original Side of the High Court, because Company Court does not fall under the definition of Origmal Civil Jurisdiction as defined under Section 129 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, this Court not exercising the Original Civil Jurisdiction, therefore, the rules framed by the High Court under the Original Civil Jurisdiction, will not apply.

( 5 ) MR. Nayyar further contended that powers to frame rules have been given to the High Court under Part X of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 122 empowers the High Courts toframe rules from time to time relating to their own procedure. Rule 128 deals with the matter for which rules may be provided in the High Court. All the rules framed by the High Court under Section 122 to 128 have to regulate High Court s own procedure in the exercise of its Original Civil Jurisdiction. He, therefore, contended that the Company Court does not fall under the definition of Original Civil Jurisdiction.

( 6 ) NO rigid rules have been laid down for Company Court. Its rules are based on equity and principle of natural justice. Under the Company Rules no provisions are provided for the evidencing of the affixation by one witness. In the absence of any specific rule in this regard we can look to the Code for assistance as envisaged under Rule 6. Rule 6 of the Companies Rules reads as under :- "save as provided by the Act or by these rules the practice and procedure of the Court and the provisions of the Code so far as applicable. . . . . . . "

( 7 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Nayyar once it is established that the Companies (Court) Rules are silent, regarding procedure to be followed for effecting service by affixation then we can bank Upon the procedure laid down under the Code so far as appalicable. Now reading the provision of Rule 17 of Order 5, CPC, it becomes quite clear that when the defendant cannot be found inspite of due diligence the serving officer shall affix a copy of the summons on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the defendant ordinarily resided and shall then return the original summons to the Court with report endorsed there