The main legal point established in the judgment is the adequacy of service of summons and the publication in the newspaper as per the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and the Companies Act.

M.L. Mehta, J.

1. This is an appeal against the order dated 6th July, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A. No. 317/2005 filed by Appellant No. 3, I.A. No. 1091/2005 filed by Appellants No. 1, 2 & 4 and I.A. No. 1271 filed by Appellant No. 5, under Order 9 Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure in original suit bearing CS(OS) No. 2433 of 1996. Vide impugned order, learned Single Judge dismissed the applications, filed by the Appellants for setting aside the ex-parte decree passed in favour of Respondent No. 1 (Plaintiff) and against Appellants and Respondents No. 2 to 4.

2. The brief chronology of facts and events resulting to the filing of the present appeal are that Respondent No. 1 filed the aforesaid civil suit for recovery of Rs. 14,89,325/- against Defendants No. 1 to 9. Defendants No. 1 to 3 are the Appellants No. 1 to 3, Defendant No. 6 is Appellant No. 4 and Defendant No. 7 is Appellant No. 5. The other Defendants viz Defendants No. 4, 5 and 8 are arrayed as Respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 in the present appeal. Defendant No. 1 (Appellant No. 1 herein) is a Public Limited Company, Defendant No. 2 (Appellant No. 2 herein) is the Chairman and Defendants No. 3, 6 and 7 (Appellants No. 3 to 5) are directors of the Appellant No. 1 company. In the plaint, the residential addresses of Defendants No. 7 and 9 were furnished and they were duly served at those addresses. The Chandigarh office address was also stated to be the residential address of the Chairman and some other Directors. Defendants No. 1, 2, 7 and 9 were served, but other Defendants remained unserved despite issuance of summons at all the given addresses, including the two project sites at Bombay. At the instance of the Plaintiff, the name of Defendant No. 9 was struck off from the array of the parties. Defendants No. 1, 2 and 7 did not appear despite service and as no written statement was filed on their behalf, their right to file the same was closed.

3. Since Defendants No. 3 to 6 and 8 remained repeatedly unserved, the Joint Registrar, vide order dated 24th March, 1999 directed them to be served through publication in daily newspaper under Order 5 Rule 20 Code of Civil Procedure. All the Defendants were served by publication in Indian Express Delhi and Chandigarh edition dated 28th July, 1999, and since they did not appear, they were proceeded ex-parte. Plaintiff (Respondent No. 1) filed evidence by way of affidavit and, thereafter, an ex-parte decree was passed against the Defendants.

4. Defendants No. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 are the Appellants who filed applications under Order 9 Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex-parte decree. The same came to be dismissed by learned Single Judge of this Court vide impugned order dated 6th July, 2007. The present appeal has been preferred against the said order of the learned Single Judge.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants has assailed the order of learned Single Judge on the ground that the Appellants, as also Respondents No. 2 to 4, were not served at their residential addresses and no effort was made by the Plaintiff to get them served at their residential addresses. He submitted that Plaintiff did not make any inquiry to ascertain the correct addresses of the Appellants and that Delhi address was a commercial address of the Appellants and further that since it was no longer being used by them, the question of serving them at the said address did not arise and consequently, the publication at the said address was bad in law.

6. He further submitted that a copy of newspaper was not sent to the Appellants as per Rule 8 Chapter 7-B Volume IV of the High Court Rules. Learned Counsel relied upon M/s Durant Refrigeration Pvt. Ltd v. Northern Radio & Refrigeration Co. (P) Ltd 48 (1992) DLT 680 and Shri Lachhman Dass v. Messers Veer Finance Co. and Ors. 5 (1969) DLT 306.

7. Based on these contentions, learned Counsel submitted that the applications under Order 9 Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure of the