JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

The order under challenge in this appeal reads as follows:

'Written statement not filed by the defendant. The defendant is set ex-parte.

Registry is directed to list the matter before the concerned learned Master for recording evidence.'

2. The main contention of the appellant in this appeal is that the suit summons were not served on the appellant at any point of time. Therefore, the period fixed under Rule 1 Order V of the Original Side Rules does not start running. In such view of the matter, according to learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned single Judge was not right in denying the appellant the opportunity to defend and directing the matter to be proceeded exparte. The fact that the suit summons were not served on the appellant is conceded by the learned counsel for the respondents. It is stated that the private notice was served in the application stage. That by itself, in our considered opinion, would not amount to service of suit summons so as to enable the Court to deny the defendant the opportunity to defend due to lapse of time. Rule 1 Order V of reads as follows:

'If the defendant intends to