IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1622 of 2008 MD.SULEMAN SHAH & ORS Versus RAJENDRA SAHU & ORS ----------- 2. 23.9.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners would submit that as a matter of fact defendant no.1 is still residing in village home but has got incorrect service report made. As with regard to defendant no.9 counsel does not have any definite information. This Court would find that the summons issued on defendant no.1 had returned back unserved with an endorsement of postal peon as also process server that no such person in the name of defendant no.1 is living in the village. A similar service report is also received with regard to defendant no.9 which was also recorded by the court below in the order dated 12.4.2004. In that view of the matter, if the petitioners had filed an application for substituted service by getting it published in Dainik Jagaran, such prayer of the petitioner made on 7.5.2004 should not have been kept pending for a period of four years by the court below which has chosen to pass 2 the impugned order only on 24.7.2008. It is unfortunate that such a routine matter on merit regarding the service of notice was unnecessarily kept pending in which period if the court had really made sincere efforts, notices could have been served especially when defendants no. 6 and 7 had come out with a case that defendants no. 1 and 9 are residing at Jaipur and Delhi respectively. All that, therefore, required by the court below was to compel defendants no. 6 and 7 to divulge correct address of defendants no. 1 and 9 so that fresh service could have been effected and in absence thereof substituted service could have been made by publishing the notice in the newspaper at Jaipur and Delhi. That having been not done this Court cannot take the matter so lightly as has been done by the court below in the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the court below is directed to reconsider the matter in course whereof it may direct defendants no. 6 and 7 to divulge the correct address of defendants no. 1 and 9 and on making such address available 3 direct the petitioner to take immediate steps for service of notice within a period of seven days. That will not mean that the petitioner will be absolved to take steps of ascertaining the correct address of defendants no. 1 and 9 as early as possible so that the steps can be taken for service of notice as against them. Whatever be the shape of things, a final decision with regard to service of notice on respondents no. 1 and 9 must be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. This application is, accordingly, allowed in the aforementioned terms. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/