1986 PLP 1245 (MLD)

‑‑‑O.V, R.20‑‑Substituted service, justification for‑‑Summons remaining unserved through registered post as well as through bailiff‑‑Bailiff in one of reports stating that Chowkidar at site had informed him that efendants had asked him not to accept any notice‑‑Substituted service on application of plaintiff, thereafter through publication in newspaper‑ --Plea of issuing of summons at wrong address would not be tenable in view of absence of such plea in affidavit submitted by defendants Order of substituted service by Trial Court on basis of material on record, being legal and proper, by exception, held, could be taken thereto. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑O.V, R.20 & O.IX, r.13‑‑Substituted service, publication of‑‑Plea that publication of notice in newspaper of which defendants were neither subscribers nor understood language thereof, held, could not be sustainable because of absence of such facts in affidavit submitted by defendants‑‑Such facts could not subsequently be introduced in rejoinder‑‑Decree passed in consequence of such substituted service being valid, could not be set aside in circumstances. This is an application under Order 1X, rule 13, C.P.C. for setting aside the judgment and decree passed on 18‑12‑1978. The application was filed on 30‑1‑1983. The main ground as pleaded by the defendant is that the summons was never served on the defendant. The defendants Nos.l to 3 are the directors of the respondent No.4. From the record it seems that the summonses were issued by registered post, as well as through bailiff. The summons issued by registered post were returned unserved as none of the defendants were found at the time of service. Three times the bailiff has submitted his report that whenever he went, the chowkidar available there stated that the mill has been closed. and the defendants Nos.l to 3 do not attend the Office. In one of the reports the bailiff had stated that the Chowkidar told him that the defendants have instructed not to accept any notice. In those circumstances the plaintiffs filed application under Order V, rule 20, C . P. C . which was granted and the summons was published in daily 'SUN' on 3‑7‑1978. The learned counsel for the defendant has contended that the summons were being issued at the wrong address. This objection is not sustainable because the defendants themselves in their affidavit have not stated what is their correct address. Even in affidavit they have not given their own address. On the other hand A the plaintiffs have filed two letters with the plaint as Annexures C and D in which the defendants Nos.1 to 3 have given their address as c/o Ghafoor Textile Mills. Therefore, this was the address given by the defendants in their correspondence and on the same address the summonses were issued. The learned counsel then contended that the order of substitute service was not proper and legal as in the application facts have not been stated about the attempts made by the bailiff to serve the defendants. A perusal of the application clearly shows that all material facts have been stated in it and the order passed by the Court granting this application was legal and proper, and no exception can be taken to it. The third contention of the learned counsel is that the publication was made in a newspaper which did not have wide circulation and further that the defendants are not the subscribers of this newspaper and only know Gujrati. These facts have not been stated in the affidavit. The learned counsel state that this fact has been stated in the rejoinder, which is an afterthought. If at all the publication was to be challenged those facts should have been stated in the affidavit it is well settle that new facts cannot be introduced in the rejoinder which is an afterthought. If at all the publication was to be challenged those facts should have been stated in the affidavit. It is well settled that new facts cannot be introduced in the rejoinder. For these reasons the application is dismissed. A.A Application dismissed.