IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 419 OF 2011 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 163 OF 2004 SHRI MENINO COUTINHO AND ANR., ... Applicants Versus SHRI SEBASTIAO MIRANDA AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. R. G. Ramani, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. J. Godinho, Advocate for the Respondent no.1. Coram:- F. M. REIS, J. Date:- 13th October, 2011 P.C. Heard Shri Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants and Shri J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.1. 2. It is the contention of Shri Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants that the service on the Respondent no.2 has been effected by posting the summons by a registered post AD to the last known address of the Respondent no.2. The learned Counsel further pointed out that neither the envelope nor the AD card has been returned by the postal authorities within the period prescribed and, as such, under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, the said Respondent no.2 is to be held to have been served. 3. Shri Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.1 points out that the service can be ordered to be completed at the risk of the Applicants. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the records, it cannot be disputed that the summons were posted to the Respondent no.2 by registered post A.D. at the address as mentioned by the Applicants. In such circumstances, the application is allowed at the risk of the Applicants. The Respondent no.2, as such, is ordered to be treated as duly served at the risk of the Applicants. 5. Application stands disposed of accordingly. F. M. REIS, J. arp/*