IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1226 of 2003 SMT. MEENA DEVI & ORS Versus LALIT SINGH & ORS ----------- 16. 30.9.2008 Heard counsel for the parties. In the opinion of this Court the grounds which have been taken by the petitioners for assailing the impugned order refusing to set aside the ex parte order in a suit may not stand the test of strict scrutiny but then the interest of justice would definitely be served if the petitioners, the contesting defendants, are allowed to contest the suit on merit. It appears that the notices were not properly served on some of the defendants and of course no steps were taken by the plaintiff for substituted service. That being so, when there was no direct proof of service of notice through registered cover and the report of the process server while effecting service of ordinary notices was under serious challenge, the court below ought to have allowed such application by imposing a cost for the loss sustained by the plaintiffs either in pursuing their suit or on account 2 of harassment that could have been caused by way of recall their two witnesses. Taking all such facts and circumstances into consideration, this Court would set aside the impugned order by directing the petitioners to pay a cost of Rs. 3000/- to the plaintiffs within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Whereafter they will be entitled to contest the suit on merit. The petitioners, however, even after payment of such cost must file their written statement within a period of two months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order as also must co-operate in disposal of the suit without causing any further impediment. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is allowed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/