- (1.) HEARD on I. A. No. 1. In the affidavit filed along with the petition, it is stated that the impugned judgment and decree was passed on 19. 11. 99. By 20. 2. 2000, the father of the appellant died. Thereafter, the younger brother K. V. NARESH BABU died on 22. 3. 2000. On 11. 8. 2000 after some amount of illness, the nephew of the appellant died. In view of the successive deaths in the family, the appellant contend that he was mentally depressed and was not able to file the appeal in time. There is a delay of 159 days in filing the appeal.
(2.) THE Counsel for the appellant also contended that the 2nd appellant has been placed ex parte and there is no personal service of summons on her. Summons were served by way of affixture and there is a deemed service. The 2nd appellant is none other than the wife of the first appellant. Both of them are the defendants in the suit. The plaintiff bank had filed suit for recovery of money which is decreed. The defendants being aggrieved have filed this appeal belatedly.
(3.) THE Counsel for the appellant made efforts to argue about the improper service of summons on the 2nd appellant and in placing her ex parte by the trial Court. I am unable to accept the contention of the Counsel for the appellants. The 2nd appellant has been rightly placed ex parte by deemed service by affixture. Even otherwise, the first defendant none other than her husband, both of them are living together, the first defendant has made appearance through counsel has not filed written statement. Therefore, at any rate, it cannot be argued or inferred that the 2nd appellant had no notice of the proceedings. All these aspects are not very germane for consideration in I. A. No. 1.;